"The Enloe Files" Dept.
(Part I --Recapitulation of Dialogue Themes)

As I will not be responding to Tim's entire post for the sake of brevity, the link to his recent response to my last post to him can be located HERE. In this response, Tim's words will be in light red font. My words will be in regular font.  

A Few Words on "Faith and History", Ecclesiology, And The Nature of "Christian Truth" in Response to Shawn McElhinney

I wanted to say a few things about "faith and history" in response to Shawn's most recent reply to me on that subject.

I'll begin with the concept of "Catholic" historians and work from there. I have finally decided that it is fruitless to argue with Roman Catholics about the "Catholic" status of this or that historian (in this case, Brian Tierney).

So that the readers are clear on this, my intention is not to make for fruitless dialogue with Tim. Instead, it is to point to the questionable classification of some of his sources. As I noted earlier, if he wanted to simply refer to Brian Tierney as a "historian" then I have no objections whatsoever.

Shawn has repeatedly complained that I call Tierney a "Catholic" even though Tierney has serious doubts about the historical origins and contemporary definition / application of the dogma of papal infallibility.

Obviously I cannot have problems with the application of the dogma since I have already conceded to Tim one point of his on this matter: that the form which the papal primacy took subsequent to Gregory VII was in some respects novel and that much of those applications could easily be set aside without in any way impairing the essence of the dogma in question.

As far as infallibility goes, it is a derivative of the dogma of papal primacy and I am hesitant to discuss it because too many Catholics do not properly understand it. I do not therefore expect Protestants like Tim to properly understand it either -and not because Tim is lacking in intelligence. (Far from it in fact.) It is simply my desire to focus on primary doctrines and not derivative ones whenever possible.

Shawn likens my calling Tierney a "Catholic" to Shawn calling the strange folks at Outside the Camp "Reformed", and says I shouldn't do the former if I don't want him to the latter.

And the parallel is not without warrant here. I would never refer to the "Outside the Camp" guys as "Reformed" because that would be an insult to Tim and his religious tradition. Likewise, whatever Tim thinks of Catholic conventions, I do not believe it is unreasonable to expect the same approach in return.

Other Roman Catholics who have seen me mention Tierney's name in connection with historical pursuits have also strenuously objected. But it has been instructive to note what these Catholic object to as much as it is how they object.

Considering the fact that Brian Tierney's works comprise less than 10% of my thesis bibliography, and I cite from numerous other historians far more than I do from Tierney, it does seem very strange that the mere name "Tierney" has been enough for several Catholics I've spoken with about the historical issues to explode into vigorous defenses of their theological concerns, drawing all sorts of nefarious connections between what (they say) Tierney does and what (they say) "liberals" like Hans Kung and the Jesus Seminar do.

I mention Tierney Tim because you brought him up in our discussion at one point. My focus is not on him for any other reason then that. His work of what I have read thus far does not impress me.

I had made the analogy to Shawn that the Roman Catholic system is a type of "theological geometry", beginning with infallible axioms and indubitably unfolding their logic, regardless of connections or lack thereof to the spacetime world, and thus that it is essentially "guilty of trying to get us all to believe that 2+2 actually equals 465, or that circles can be square, or that bachelors can be married men."

I am reminded of the dictum that those who know the best about how to raise children are those without children. Tim in the above analogy presents to me an analogy to Catholic methodology that I do not remotely recognize.{1} It is interesting that Tim does not stop to consider that maybe...just maybe the one not properly assimilating the information just *might* be Tim himself.

To this, Shawn replies "There is of course no agenda in Tierney's work I suppose. Or to state it differently: he is absolutely free from all possibility of interpreting evidences in a non-objective manner. Of course not. I fully admit that Tierney has an agenda. In fact, everyone regardless of their confessional position always has an "agenda." (Latin perfect passive participle: "a thing to be done"). No one ever "just" approaches Truth and no one ever achieves an "objective" understanding of it.

And I remind you Tim, I have made this point repeatedly in our dialogues over the years. If there is one point I have reiterated constantly it is what you note above.

This mentality is actually what is at issue between Shawn and myself, and not whether a given historian who presently communes within the Catholic Church and is presently not under the discipline of the Catholic Church is really a Catholic.

Again, you brought him up as a Catholic historian. I remind you of your statement from back in October. Though not the first time you mentioned Tierney to me, this example will work as well as any other so here goes:

Shawn quoted a Catholic historian in his favor, so I will likewise quote one in mine.

Writing against the view discussed above against a particularly dogmatic (in the bad sense) critic of his, the erudite Brian Tierney...

I have of course challenged the veracity of the assertion you made about Tierney's Catholicism. Need I remind you though that the Tierney thread is actually pretty minor compared to other points I have already gone over??? Here are parts from a two part response to you from September. Your words in the next two will be dark red italicized:

[I]f one is not already predisposed to a Realistic conception of reality (whether Platonic, Neoplatonic or Aristotelian is immaterial at this point in the argument) through which one is filtering ideas such as "apostolic succession" and "Petrine primacy", one isn't going to read somebody like Pseudo-Dionysius coining the word "hierarchy" (hierus + archus) and explaining how all power and authority in the world flows downward through a gradation of lesser powers from the Absolute One, who alone guarantees their legitimacy, and go, "Ooh, I bet this is the Apostolic Doctrine about the Papacy!"

And if one is predisposed to a particular form of nominalism, they essentially model a given concept on its external object and (as a result) consequently deny the existence of universal concepts and the notion that the intellect has the power of engendering them. (Essentially collective terms such as "animal, "tree", "house", "city", "nation", and even "hierarchy" have no objective real existence corresponding to them. Instead, they are mere words, names, terms, or vocal utterances and only particular individual things exist.)

Or, if one is predisposed to a particular form of conceptualism, they essentially admit the existence of universal concepts but professes a form of agnosticism as to whether said universals actually exist in reality to the extent that they can be framed in the abstract. (Essentially the concepts have value but whether that value transfers from the realm of the abstract into the realm of reality is either denied or simply held as unknown.)

It would seem clear to me that nominalism and conceptualism are the other "strands" you are referring to.{2} And as they have no solid foundation that I am aware of prior to the tenth century, I do not believe it can be held against those who refuse to admit them as having an equal weight as the various forms of realism which either predate them or were developed from core realist outlooks in response to them. Whatever abstract value they may have, they are hardly able to be applied in practice without disastrous results...[Rerum Novarum weblog entry On Papal Primacy and Church History Part I (circa 9/30/03)]

And again:

If one denies metaphysical realism, as some Medievals beginning in the 11th century began to do (with many more following them as the centuries progressed), and chooses to emphasize the other parts of the Western tradition over the "Pope as principatus" part, one is going to see in Church history far different things than the Roman Catholic sees.

Obviously if one denies there are universal concepts and claims that terms to explain them are mere words, names, terms, or vocal utterances and only particular individual things exist (nominalism) or if they admit of theoretical universals but deny any possible practical application of such (conceptualism), they will not view matters as a Catholic does - of this I have no disagreement with you whatsoever.

This shouldn't be a point that makes the Roman Catholic go, "Well, you're just a rebel playing games with history, because the essence of the history is obviously papalist."

Agreed. But at the same time one who wants to espouse a nominalist or conceptualist outlook should not be too critical of those who believe that (i) there is no contradiction between faith and reason properly understood and (ii) who admit of universals in reality as well as the abstract.

For without the existence in reality of universals, there is no way to meaningfully solve any problems that exist since either (i) one can deny that the solution applies by undermining the very concept of objective truth by denying the meanings applied to the concepts used (ala nominalism). Or, (ii) one can simply deny that there are universals in reality though recognizing that there are in the abstract (ala conceptualism). This is another way of achieving what nominalism achieves by a defacto subjectifying of everything. And as a result, it is another route towards intellectual anarchy. [Rerum Novarum weblog entry On Papal Primacy and Church History Part II (circa 9/30/03)]

You can talk about the stripping away of epistemological garb but of course all of it is meaningless if you affirm either a nominalist or a conceptualist outlook. And as you like to criticize realist outlooks, you need to take a stand one way or the other since those are your other two options. For someone striving to take history seriously, those are not options which strengthen your hand.

What I am concerned with is the manner in which the status of men such as Tierney as "Catholics" or not is used by many "True Catholics"™ to detract attention from the historical arguments that these men make.

But Tim, I am not trying to detract from his arguments at all in denying him the moniker of a Catholic historian. You can choose to believe otherwise if you want but I have no concern whatsoever about Tierney's arguments. I am not awed with what I have read of them and there is no need to try to "distract" from them. If you know one thing about me by now it is surely that while you may not agree with my positions that I nonetheless do not dodge arguments.

The interesting thing is that so many of these Catholics will easily and incessantly taunt Protestants with simplistic maxims such as Newman's "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant" only to themselves be found to avoid getting "deep in history" because what they really want to do is get "deep in theology" and pass off mere repetition of dogmatic axioms as "history."

Again, when have I run from arguments Tim??? You yourself noted back in September that I do not do this -and we have delved into history in our dialogues for years. I quote your own words from September:

I'm very glad to see a Catholic who can wade right in to a discussion on the papal monarchy of the later Middle Ages without batting an eyelash...

And I cannot ever recall being afraid of wading into discussions about Church history with you or anyone else.

I do not see any other way to express this point, which has been driven home to me time and time again by the manner in which Roman Catholics do their historical apologetics. They are all for discussing ‚"historical facts‚" such as "papal primacy" until you point out to them that "primacy" has always had multiple interpretations based on the cultural context of the Christians who talked about it, and that the complex of papal claims from their origin until at least the 16th century was buried deep within changing historical-social situations related to the cause of the (now dead) "Universal Empire of the Romans."

In my experience, Roman Catholics wish to talk about "history" until they realize the history isn't going to get them anywhere, at which time they retreat to invocations of "faith" and allege that what they are doing with regard to "the Church‚" is exactly what Protestants do with regard to "the Bible."

Three points:

1) I have made notations very similar to the ones that you have viz. primacy and its variegated applications many times in our dialogues. In fact, I was noting this to you before you began your study of the Medieval period so I am hardly one to shy away from that admission now.

2) I have pointed to things such as TULIP and the Westminster Confession because those are areas which as a Calvinist you accept on faith. To challenge whether or not they actually conform to Scripture would not be seen by you as a viable option. But in advancing this line of argumentation, it is *not* because I feel that the history isn't going to get [me] anywhere.

3) Your attempt to paint the applications of the term primacy as being solely based on the cultural context of the Christians who talked about it, and that the complex of papal claims from their origin until at least the 16th century was buried deep deep within changing historical-social situations related to the cause of the (now dead) "Universal Empire of the Romans" is a faint echo of the canard that the primacy was based on the "civic greatness" of Rome or some other cultural aspect.

Now I do not deny of course that cultural events shaped the manner whereby the principle was applied. However, the foundation of the principle was never viewed in this manner whatsoever. Indeed the popes themselves from as far back as we have records based their authority not on secular pretenses but on the promises of Christ to Peter. The Fathers themselves also in various ways recognized this principle. This is another subject I went over in previous essays so it will not be repeated here.

To be Continued...

Notes:

{1} And I have studied Catholic theology for quite some time.

{2} The footnote for this section read as follows:

This is based on your reference to a Realistic conception of reality (whether Platonic, Neoplatonic or Aristotelian is immaterial at this point in the argument). As nominalism is the opposite of realism -and conceptualism is a functionally impotent version of a via media between realism and nominalism- by deductive reasoning you must be referring to one of these two principles of interpretation. [Rerum Novarum weblog entry On Papal Primacy and Church History Part I, footnote 6 (circa 9/30/03)]

More on the Canon of Scripture:

I say "more" because I already blogged some brief comments on this subject back in September of this year. It is also one subject that I have gone over ad nausium over the years in message board formats and other mediums.

Now it is true that the subject is worth touching on occasionally because it is such a fundamental topic in the various Christian weltanschauungs particularly those who espouse some form of sola scriptura. But frankly your humble servant is pretty fed up with the way this subject is generally approached. This blog post will cover that a bit and unfortunately have to mention some names.

The reason for the latter is because I am beyond tired of seeing the same bilge recycled again and again: the same confessional propaganda, the same faulty presuppositions, and the same fundamental errors. And since speaking on this subject without mentioning names seems to not have an effect, then it is necessary to mention names so that readers of this humble weblog can know whom not to rely on for accurate information on this subject.

There will be two threads interacted with below - two Catholics (caths) and words of a Protestant (prot) that one of the Catholics was responding to. The words of the prot will be in orange font. The words of the first cath (the one dialoguing with the prot) will be in lime font while the words of the second cath will be in purple font. My words will be in regular font with sources in darkblue where warranted.

Basically, if there is no infallible way to know the books that comprise your Bible right now are correct, then you can never be certain that the Scripture you are reading is infallible.

I suggest not to use the "infallible knowledge" argument. I think a better argument is "certainty". How can one be certain on the canon of Scriptures?

I concur with the second outlook. I will even take it a step further and say that it is a good rule in general to never invoke the subject of infallibility viz. the canon at all.

Now to his statements...

"Firstly, the emergence of the Cannon was a long process of evaluation by thousands of individual Christians and local churches.

The parties who made this evaluation were the bishops of the various churches, not individual Christians.

Given that the Holy Spirit is active in the Church, when the vast majority of Christians, over hundreds of years testify to a books authenticity as the inspired Word of God then this carries significant weight (although it does not make it absolutely certain, since it is still possible for millions of Christians to be wrong, eg we all used to believe that the Earth was flat!)."

This individual is confusing certainty with infallibility. It is precisely this tendency which is why infallibility should never be discussed when it comes to the canon of Scripture.

Actually, this doesn't make any sense.

#1 If it is possible for millions of Christians to be wrong, then I think he should re-think about his position that the Holy Spirit is active in the Church.

Or perhaps he needs to rethink the means whereby the Holy Spirit is active in the Church. This though should occur after he outlines what constitutes "the Church" and does so in a way that (i) excludes all previous heretics and schismatics while (ii) vindicating the so-called "reformers." Otherwise, the positions of the Apostolic Churches -and the recognition of binding Church authority in reality as opposed to the mere abstract- must be contended with head on and I doubt he wants to do that.

#2 The earth being flat is scientific, not theological.

Yes.

#3 If the Holy Spirit is active in the Church in producing the canon, then the canon must be infallible (not fallible). Since the Holy Spirit is infallible and He produced it, then it must be. If it is, then what you have is an infallible unwritten tradition outside the Bible and hence, Sola Scriptura is refuted.

What confutes sola scriptura is not infallibility -indeed the fact that most *Catholics* do not understand this principle is among the reasons why this is so. One of the "boilerplate" arguments that Greg Krehbiel and I shredded at the old Catholic Converts board a few years ago was Patrick Madrid's "canon fodder" argument from Not By Scripture Alone (NBSA).{1} Pat was not present to retract the argument and he continues to my knowledge to propagate it.

I note this not to pick on Pat whom I quite like but because he is among the major apologists who make this error. And he is hardly alone in this regard -indeed I could make quite a list but will settle for the following examples -the first also from NBSA.

If one reviews the comments of Robert Sungenis back in his orthodox days to the Madrid-Jones debate in NBSA, among the problematic epistemological points Bob made in his commentary includes the following one:

"that without some form of infallibility, Jones cannot be certain of virtually anything he propose" (NBSA pg. 574).

As that is the only one that is a direct confusion of infallibility with certainty in that section -though there are other more implied assertions- in other places of the book he makes the same error again in an explicit manner:

"If as the previous apologist claimed, the canon is revealed to 'the sheep who hear his voice,' are these sheep able to recognize his voice infallibly? If not then he must fully admit to his audience that he does not have an infallible canon; that, in fact, he cannot be sure at all which books actually constitute Scripture" (NBSA pg. 272).

And to show that this extends beyond Madrid and Sungenis, I include the following from Jeffrey Morrow who wrote three years ago an article on the canon for This Rock which included the following argument:

"you don't have a reliable Bible unless the Catholic Church's decision regarding the canon was infallible" (Jeffrey L. Morrow: In the Crosshairs of the Canon).

This is a fourth example from a third person to confuse certainty with infallibility. Here is a fifth example from a fourth source:

"The Old Testament Church was not infallible, folks. So how did you know for sure what was inspired? Because the Old Testament people of God regarded it as such . . . but you couldn't infallibly know what Scripture was. It was not until the Catholic Church defined the Canon that you could know." (Mario Derksen: Response to Gary De Mar on Sola Scriptura).

Yet again we have confusion of certainty with infallibility. I include Mario here because this was from his orthodox period and there is a clear Catholic Answers influence here. A sixth example from a fifth source can be noted here:

"If the Church was not infallible at this point [on deciding the canon -ISM], then the infallibility of the Word of God becomes suspect, because apart from the Church, how do we know what books should actually be in the Bible?" (Dean at KiwiCatholic: Response to an Anti-Catholic Letter).

I could list others but here we have three examples from two prominent Catholic apologists -in Bob's case from his NBSA days which preceded his schism by five years. There are also examples from Mario when he was still within the Church and an individual (Dean) who was clearly influenced in his argument from Catholic Answers whom he credits along with Dave Armstrong for helping him formulate his arguments in that rather multitopical letter of his.{2}

It should also be noted that I do not want this criticism to be understood as an indictment of Dean's entire letter by any means. This is more an example of Dean trusting in Catholic Answers (CA) to provide a solid argument on this point.{3}

"And Secondly, the majority of the cannon was accepted by all Christians from the beginning, and it was only a handful of books that were in dispute (I've got details of this in my Church History notes if you want me to dig them out). Thus the bulk of the Cannon is pretty much 100% sure (based on historical evidence, rather than an official decree of the Church) and there are only a few books that are slightly less certain than the rest."

As an aside, some argue from God's sovereignty, and His desire for all to know the truth, that He ensured that the Cannon was correctly recognised by the church (although personally, I’m not sure that this is safe to assume since God often doesn't make himself as clear as we would like. This is what I would’ve done if I was God, but God’s ways are mysterious, and often don't make sense to us).

"What’s stopping you from doing what Luther did and want to reject certain books of the Bible as Scripture just because they don’t match up with your interpretation?"

What's stopping this from happening is the weight of the two points I mentioned above. It would take an overwhelming amount of evidence for a good protestant Scholar to go against the weight of tradition on this matter.

So his position is that "the bulk of the cannon is 100% sure" but a few books are slightly less certain!? Does this mean that he is uncertain about the inspiration of Revelation and Hebrews? It seems to me that he is not certain about the canon, but only some or the majority of it. And if he is not certain that some books are scripture, then he cannot practice Sola Scriptura since "All Scripture is inspired...makes man fully-equipped". *All*, not "a bulk" makes man fully-equipped. Hence, he cannot practice Sola Scriptura unless he is certain that the whole canon is inspired.

I agree with the latter's view with one caveat: the person being referred to does not require infallibility to have certainty. (Not that XXXXXXXX is saying he does mind you; however the two are often confused by people.)

For example if Paul's missing letter to the Corinthians was found (We know that 2 Corinthians is actually his third letter to them) and in it Paul condemned the Epistle of James as heretical, then there would be a case for excluding James from the cannon. Of course this is extremely unlikely but I'm just trying to demonstrate the type of evidence required, to justify redefining the cannon. Luther was clearly wrong to reject James based on his individual interpretation.

I think my response above can refute this.

As a small aside, it is interesting that he picks the Romans/James example out of many which he could have chosen...

"Like Catholics, good Protestant Scholars give a lot of attention to the history of the Church, and the development of dogma, the difference is that the Protestant Scholar is able to conclude with the benefit of hindsight that the church erred in its teaching."

Of course how the prot scholar can do this is not explained. It is simply asserted that it happens. Well my friends, that is not good enough -not by a long shot. I would recommend to the first cath to reject this assertion and remand it back to the aforementioned prot to explain rather than merely assert.

Anyone can claim something without backing it up. The best way to do this is with some examples of where the church erred in its teaching. And of course no one should take such assertions at face value without attempting to scrutinize them as carefully and objectively as they can.

I think Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are reductionism, not development, of dogma.

Agreed. It is the same species of arrested development that affects atheists when it comes to the ultimate question we all have about our existence. (Different animal, same species if you will.)

Also, it seems that your friend is an evidentialist and I don't think most Christians are evidentialists.

I have to agree with the latter point. However, I have been rather critical of the way most Catholics approach this subject so I will do what I can to supply an alternative approach -one that I have outlined in various ways over the years in various formats. Nonetheless, it seems appropriate to do it again here.

Hand in hand with this is a confusion of the subject of infallibility and its range. As Greg Krehbiel noted in his Protestant days, the common misconceptions that many Catholics parrot on this score can come back to bite them if they are not careful:

"When defending the notion of infallibility, the Catholic Answers crowd will retreat to the minimalist position: the pope is only infallible when he speaks on faith and morals as universal pastor, etc. etc., and this has only happened twice. So, when you point out the stupid things that were said by popes and papal defenders in the 11th to 14th centuries, they'll point out that those things aren't infallible.

But then you talk to them about the canon. They'll say, 'what good is an infallible Bible without an infallible canon.' And I respond, 'I don't know, why don't you ask any Roman Catholic who lived in the 11th century, since the canon wasn't infallibly defined until hundreds of years later.' And suddenly the minimalist position disappears. Infallibility no longer applies only to ecumenical councils and ex cathedra statements. Now it's very broad and applies to some kind of general consensus among theologians" (Greg Krehbiel: Countering Catholic Apologetics).

Now as Greg was a Protestant when he wrote those lines, his mistakes viz. infallibility and its application are of course excusable. My main point here is his primary argumentation thread which is correct. Most Catholics confuse ex cathedra pronouncements with dogmatic definitions of faith and that gets them into a lot of deep water when these issues are probed with any degree of detail.

For example, depending on the Catholic you ask who adheres to the minimalist error on infallibility, the canon was definitively settled either at Trent (Robert Sungenis) or Florence (Jeffrey Morrow). In either case, the problem is obvious: what about the previous fifteen hundred years??? The Church has never taught that infallibility pertains only to ex cathedra definitions of faith: indeed ex cathedra "definitions" can encompass not only what is "de fide" but also what is theologically certain and therefore must be "held." This is very clear from Vatican I's definition of infallibility and is clarified by the authoritative relatio from the Council on the subject of infallibility.{4}

Also, it was also made clear that certain derivative truths which were recognized as requiring of protection from error were not being defined at the Council but were to be held as they already were: as theologically certain.{5} In short, there is a lot more to this than casually appears. But back to the argument at hand here.

Whether you place the infallibility at Trent as Sungenis does, at Florence as Morrow does, or whether you do so at the 418/9 synod of Carthage as Dr. Art Sippo and your blog host (correctly) do, the problem remains the same: what about the previous period. Even if someone were to claim that the declarations of the canon at previous synods were definitive{6}, that still pushes the day of reckoning back to 382 which prompts the question: why was the lack of "infallibility" to the canon prior to that date not a problem??? In short, wherever the line is drawn, the subject eventually has to be addressed. That is, if the focus is on infallibility which I submit it should not be. And that leads inexorably to the subject of church authority.

It is best to attach the canon subject to the subject of church authority because that is what is really trenchant. Both testaments had books which were controverted as to their placement at one time. (Which I will refer to here as "deuterocanonical" or "deuters" despite the fact that there is some anachronism involved in doing that.)

The prot needs to explain why they accept the once "questionable" NT books and not the once "questionable" OT books and do so in a way that is (i) consistent and (ii) does not rely on the testimony of post-Second Temple anti-Christian rabbinical Judaism to do it.

The general approach taken by those who deny the inspiration of the OT Deuters is to point to several supposed "errors" in them which either (i) the Protocanon portions do not have or (ii) the NT Deuters do not have. I have yet to see one example with the OT Deuters supposedly "erring" where the same problems cannot be found somewhere in at least one of the OT Protocanon books. Hence the prot who uses this approach either has to (i) start chucking out Protocanon books for failing the same tests they strive to apply to the Deuters or (ii) admit that this approach of theirs for verifying the books of sacred Scripture is untenable.

Of course should they be honest and admit to the latter -which you may have to fight for them to do btw- then the table is set for discussing the presuppositions that govern their approach to the Scriptures in that way.

For when one can strip all of the varnished rhetorical flourishes down to those theses which contribute to major paradigmatical theories, then the possibility for someone eventually going through a seismic shift in how they view these issues is possible. For just as the eye that alters alters all things, the eye that is altered has a different view of all things.

With regards to the NT Deuters, the classic texts are Romans and James which appear to contradict if one accepts sola fide theory.{7} And of course the issue of what "sola fide" actually means then becomes a factor but I want to avoid that and focus on sola scriptura and the canon here briefly.

The subject of the canon should always devolve to the authority of the Church in setting forth in perpetuity the canon list which the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches have since accepted without equivocation.{8} On most of the books (39 OT, 17 NT) there was unanimity going as far back as we can ascertain. With a few others, there was a bit more ambiguity but still overwhelming enough affirmation to be included in the NT Protocanon.{9} Then there were seven books from each testament which were disputed by sections of the Church and other books which were at times held to be canonical which later were rejected. And this is the foundation from which we have to work.

For one fact that is beyond dispute is that from the very first Church statement on the canon (Council of Rome in 382) all the way to the present day is that whenever the Church has set forth the list of what is sacred Scripture, she has always set forth the same books. And in that list are the seven Deuters of the NT and seven from the OT.

Protestants accept the former and reject the latter. Therefore, since Christendom since 382 accepted all fourteen of the Deuters (seven in each testament), a consistent rationale must be set forth for why the OT Deuters are to be rejected and the ones from the NT are not to be. Catholics and Orthodox have a ready answer for that one: the Church made the judgment and it is binding.

Protestants cannot accept this rationale without completely unravelling sola scriptura because they would be accepting church authority to provide themselves the foundation to otherwise reject at their own whim the same church authority whenever it disagrees with them. And no appeal to history on their behalf can sustain them because (i) Church history in no way countenances the rejection of the OT Deuterocanons{10} and (ii) if the prots truly adhere to St. Paul's dictum that all Scripture is inspired and yet they are rejecting seven books of Scripture, then they are not even true to their own foundational theory.

Now it is true that truth is not a mere product of majority vote. However, at the same time, those who deviate from established consensus -in this case an eleven hundred plus year consensus of which books constituted sacred Scripture have the burden of proof on themselves to justify why they did this. That is the natural order of things after all: a respect for precedent while not being uncritically bound to the latter if you will.

This therefore is the manner whereby the Catholic should approach the canon subject. The fact that the Church did not have a fully fixed canon for three hundred and eighty odd years anno domini (and longer if we go back into the OT period) is not problematical for the Catholic or Orthodox positions. However, it is a *huge* problem for the Protestant positions which by their very nature depend on Scripture as the sole unimpeachable source of truth ala sola scriptura.

Again, what is needed is a non-contradictory rationale for why the prot rejects the OT Deuters while accepting the NT Deuters. And for those who pride themselves on appealing to history, the absolute lack of historical evidence for this theory{11} needs to be squarely faced up to. This is not to say that certainty cannot be had on the matter of course. However, rather than assert it, the dissidents need to establish the viability of their position.

The Catholic and the Orthodox apologists are correct in ascertaining the Sysphian task in doing this. However, by bringing into the equation the subject of "infallibility"{12} is to build regression into the argument. Avoid it and focus on authority and that is a good way to avoid the various regression arguments that are unfortunately common in these kinds of polemical interactions. And by focusing on authority and getting the prot to demonstrate a working certainty of what constitutes sacred Scripture apart from Church judgments on the matter -and do so in a non-contradictory or non-arbitrary manner- you will make a lot more productive strides in dialogue with our separated prot brethren on this vital issue than with the kind of flawed boilerplate argumentation which was forged in confessional polemics.

Notes:

{1} Pat put this argument forward in NBSA in the opening chapter. For the record, I gave this book five stars despite finding several problems with it -mostly of a minor nature. Pat's argument though was not in my view a minor one at all. (And I noted it in my review for that reason.)

{2} I am unaware of Dave actually making this error himself -though he probably at one time did make it as all people at some point do.

{3} This is not intended to denigrate Catholic Answers or its flagship publication This Rock. However, this particular subject is not one that they handle very well and that is the truth -however discomforting that it may be to some people.

{4} Where the point was made that infallibility in the form of "dogmatic judgments" or "definitions" did not rely on a set form. As the relator noted to those who sought to tie infallibility to a particular form of expression, this was not possible because (i) the subject being dealt with was no novelty and (ii) "thousands and thousands" of dogmatic judgments had been handed down without recognizable form to them - and there was not (and could not) be established any law which prescribed a set form to be observed in such judgments. These important points shoot in the head the minimalist understanding of infallibility.

{5} Vatican II eventually embodied this understanding into a Dogmatic Constitution which rendered it definitive and forbid any future speculation into the matter by theologians. (And by extension this applies to lay people as well.)

{6} Referring to 397 Carthage, 394 Carthage, 393 Hippo, or 382 Rome. The reason I point to Carthage is because that synod reiterated the canon in the context of a dogmatic dispute over a major heresy. The pope in promulgating the judgments of this synod as magisterial and requiring all churches to accept this synod -which they did- meets the qualifications for definitive status in a manner that the previous synods do not.

{7} Unless one explains away James so that it does not really say what it literally says.

{8} This is not to say that certain books were not viewed as "more authoritative" than others in doctrinal disputes of course. But that is another subject altogether.

{9} I refer here to the Pastoral Epistles of Paul (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus).

{10} For one of many historians who recognize the incongruency of the prot canon thesis with Church History is the Anglican Albert C. Sundberg who updated his influential 1957 doctoral thesis on The Old Testament Canon and the Early Church in this essay.

{11} For more on the canon, see this piece as well as this piece and also the link at footnote ten.

{12} In the case of the Orthodox, it is an appeal to "the Church" which they do not really have a working definition of. But I do not have the time or inclination to deal with this at the moment -indeed I already did so to some extent nearly three years ago in my essay Christian Unity and the Role of Authority. See my writings link for details on this.

Rerum Novarum Returns To Sheattle:

At some point I will elaborate more on the Puerto Vallarta (PV) trip which I returned from last night at 11:30pm.{1} Right now though, as I have a blister on the ball of my left foot the size of a half-dollar and am doing limited walking, it seems appropriate to blog a bit on other subjects so that is what I will do.

Note:

{1} I do intend to return to PV and perhaps live part of the year there in time. But that is a subject for another time perhaps.

"Feliz Navidad" Dept.  -A Puerto Vallarta Special Report:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

For part one of the Puerto Vallarta report, please click HERE.

I did not intend to blog again until my return to Estados Unidos but as I have thirty minutes to kill waiting for my laundry to wash, with an internet cafe next door to the laundromat I figured...why not??? I certainly should be able to handle this keyboard easier than last time where adjusting to some of the variations from the Norte Americana keyboards is required. But enough on that and on with the updating.

As far as the "pride goeth before a fall" reference from earlier, well on the night of the twenty-fourth it applied to me in spades. For the first time in about fourteen years, I actually was unable to hold my liquor down. The time after it happened last, I instituted certain "drinking prepatory" rules which I have zealously followed since. (Which has enabled me to hold my own with those of higher tolerance levels by compensating for stature disadvantages which -after I got significantly larger due to training- were even more to my advantage if you will.) However, on the night of the twenty-fourth for some reason (maybe the heat down here) I broke every single one of them inadvertently and paid dearly for it.

First of all, I did not fill my belly with food in the hours before going out. {1} Secondly, I generally drink between 10 and 12 cups of water a day anyway and when I plan to go out for drinking, I add 4 cups or more to the preparation if you will. Well, on the twenty-fourth, I had at the most about four cups of water that day. Virtually no water and no food -and consuming alcohol throughout the day including four beers before catching the bus for old town- and then we drank a lot in old town too. Let us just say that after all these years, the streak is broken now and I have been significantly humbled. The clothes I wore that night are being laundered and I sit here updating you all on this because it would not be right to only speak of the triumphs without the tragedies. And that my friends was quite the setback.

The affects of the night of drinking carried over into my day and I absolutely stunk it up on the beach volleyball games. However, I did get some food in as well as a lot of water and a lot of walking and tanning too so that compensated for it a bit. Today, I tanned in old town, visited a tequila making plant -and was educated in the ways of tequila beyond my previously meager knowledge of the situation.{2} The workout in the gym today was excellent -indeed some of the old time intensity was there and I moved some decent weight in strict form today training upper arms with one set of French presses for the triceps and one set of Nautilus curls for the biceps.{3} Again I found myself shocked at the way so many people waste valuable time training inefficiently but my friends, I have no room to boast since I had my own falls on the night of the twenty-fourth -literally.

Tomorrow I plan to tour old town a bit, tan some more, and of course drink. (Pete Vere would probably disown knowing me if I did not do the latter.) And if I do not blog again until my return, may everyone have a wonderful second day of Christmas if they are western. (My eastern brethren may your Christmas when it arrives be a blessed one as well.)

Feliz Navidad!!!

Notes:

{1} I had one small plate of nachos and a handful of potato chips all day -the former being eaten about 5pm. Without food to absorb the alcohol, one cannot drink as they can when they have eaten decently before going out.

{2} And yes, there was a lot of sampling done as well as many margaritas during the all you can eat lunch that accompanied it. All of my eating down here has been authentic Mexican food. As one who was quite the Taco Bell aficianado for years -as well as other Mexican food made American style-I will never look at tacos the same way again.

{3} Since the arms are indirectly worked with chest and back (which were worked two days ago), they did not need much to finish them off.

"Feliz Navidad" Dept.  -A Puerto Vallarta Special Report:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Yes my friends, this is actually me at an Internet cafe checking my mail and deciding to post a brief note to you all..{1} I also had to fix that nagging glitch of the Ottaviani post from the other day. But first of all, it must be noted that my body is not used to this kind of warmth in December. Considering how cold it was when we left Sea-Tac Tuesday morning -approximately six hours after my last blog post- the turn around in temperature took a bit of adjusting to. But as I am sure no one reading this feels the slightest bit sorry for me in that endeavour, that is all I will say on this matter.

After over 40 hours straight of no sleep -or at least no solid hour of it as I could not sleep on the plane- I finally after a few bars and numerous drinks had to walk about 2-3 miles of beaches and the district at night with a water bottle and a Churchill in hand. Even then though, my feet were aching but I was wide awake. So I decided to drink a few more beers and soak in the hot tub for a while. That helped the feet but I was still not tired.

I decided at that point to go back to the room and watch some TV. It took about two hours of TV before I was able to sleep at least a little bit. Odd since my food intake the previous two days was so light for the most part.{2} They had "Stir Crazy" on in English with Spanish subtitles so I brushed up on my broken Spanish a bit in that respect. I would not hesitate to use it if not for the fact that most of the dialogue -if not almost all of it- is not the kind of stuff that will work well down here without the federales suspecting me of being a criminal. But I digress...

If you can indulge me a "Grandmaster of the Obvious" moment here: this place is lovely. In virtually every possible parameter. Gotta love a place where many of the bars are open until 0600 and then open again very early. Lest anyone get the wrong idea, a clarification is needed at this point as it has been many moons since I drank as I have been doing proportionately speaking (at least thus far). One would have to go back to the six-eight weeks after my father's passing in June of 2001 to find such a period.{3} Prior to that, one would have to go back to the mid 1990's at least probably 1996 at the latest.

The difference of course in this time vs. 2001 is that this is not drinking to numb the senses but instead drinking for festivity and because...well...why not??? Peace Incarnate will be born tonight at midnight and we will be attending mass at a cathedral in town that I have been told is beautiful. As far as drinking goes, my sister -who tends to drink a lot more than I do generally speaking{4} issued the challenge the first night to go out to the bars with the slogan "I want to party until the paper hits the front porch." I immediately thought of the proverb "pride goeth before a fall" and surely enough, she was too tired to even go out after dinner and some minor drinking. None of us had slept in over a day so in that respect it is understandable. However, if she is going to boast then she had better "bring it" if you know what I am saying.

I will not say anything about it except that I approach drinking analytically to some extent so if there is any disadvantages physiologically viz. tolerance I more than compensate for it in various "tricks" I devised over the years. Not that I need them of course but they are nice to have. And some degree of pacing is soooo vital in such enterprises. But I digress.

Friday we will be going to one of the few tours we have decided to go on: a "tequila making expedition." Whether or not that one can be written off as "research and development" expenditure I am not sure ;-) I also came up with another idea for a much-needed practical item for the traveller to foreign countries.

Earlier today, I went into the gym and did an whole upper body workout for the first time in probably twenty years{5} the only difference being that it was a total of five sets. I could never have trained my upper body with the full workouts that I give individual muscles when I train{6} but five total sets and twenty minutes later, the muscles were blistered and I was out of there while most people still training when I showed up were still training after I left. I almost muttered "amateurs" under my breath but surely if God can have compassion on my areas of ignorance then I must act likewise with them -particularly on the eve of Feliz Navidad.

As I am not sure how much time is left on the time I bought, I had better post this now. I may update the blog again on this trip but do not bet the farm on it. After all, the beach and the bars call me. (And I have not played beach volleyball yet either.)

Feliz Navidad!!!

For the second installment of this thread, please go HERE.

Notes

{1} It also affords an opportunity to get out of the blazing sun after lots of tanning time. One who has seen my complexion the past seven years would never guess that I tan easily. My sister has certainly forgotten and she challenged me to a "tan-off." I am not sure I can actually win-since she began the race 100 laps ahead of me. However, this is the "Mexicali 500" and my goal today was only to reduce the gap by 25-30%.

Tomorrow I will aim to do so again with another 20-30% and then on Thursday aim to be in contention if you will. If she does win this one (and she is the heavy favourite to) I will at least go down in a blaze of glory if you will. But I never aim to place or show in anything so...we shall see :)

{2} This is not the time to talk about the "Metabolic Momentum" physiology thesis so I will spare you the details on that one at this time. (Maybe another time perhaps if I feel like talking about it.)

{3} Barring the stray evening or so of course. (I am referring to sustained drinking.)

{4} Her job as a bartender nothwithstanding.

{5} I learned early on that this was generally an ill-advised thing to do yet we see personal trainers who recommend this sort of thing -or even whole body workouts- quite often. See the dictum of Arthur Jones in the margin to ascertain my view of such "experts."

{6} As I noted earlier (see "Turn Back the Clock" Dept.) I have in recent months been training again after over seven years of virtually no training.

The Aggiornamento of Rerum Novarum:
(Via Ressourcement of Course)

In this update the following links were added to the side margin by respective categories.

Archives:

The 12/22-28 archive link was added.

My Writings and Reviews:

On the Intricacies of Dialogue - A Commentary

General Political/Social Subjects:

The Teen Smoking/Teen Sex Double Standard

Saddam Hussein and a Political "See I Told You So"

Political Election Issues:

Briefly on President Bush's "Thanksgiving in Iraq" Trip

A Dialogue On Hillary and Politics in General

Some Analysis on the Al Gore Endorsement and the Democratic Party Situation

More on Hillary's Political Future in 2004 and Beyond

Commentary on the Democratic Candidates' Political Stock (In Light of Hussein's Capture)

On the Recent War and War in General:

A Public Service Announcement (For the Soldiers in Iraq)

General Theological Subjects:

An Outline of Various Church Models Throughout History (Parts I-V)

On Church Authority:

On Principles of Interpretation

Piercing the Catholic Veil

On 'Traditionalism' (Falsely So-Called):

Briefly on Michael Davies

Dialogue On Liturgy

On 'Traditionalism' (Properly So-Called):

A Case Study in the Traditional Catholic Maxim of "Unity-in-Diversity" (Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ vs. Rerum Novarum)

Dialogue on Liturgy and "Restoration" (El Camino Real vs. Rerum Novarum)

On Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Fidelity On Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Fidelity

The title on that one accidentally repeats itself but I do not have time to fix it in the next week. (So please bear with that minor irritant in that interim.)

Briefly to Jeff Culbreath

On Communion in the Hand and Church History

On 'Progressivism' (Falsely So-Called):

The 'Insensitivity' of Fisking Idiotarians

On Controverted Subjects:

On Polarizing Views

A Dialogue on 'Balance'

On "Traditionalism", "Antisemitism", and Mel Gibson: (A Response to the Constant Criticisms of Bill Cork)

Miscellaneous Musings (On Church Architecture)

"Ecumenical Jihad" Dept.

An Argumentation Fallacy

More on the Death Penalty (Dialogue With Greg Mockeridge)

On Ecclesiology and Church History With Tim Enloe (Parts I-II)

The last link I intended to add and was unable to was the following one:

On the Liturgical Movement (A Society of St. John Mini-Series; Prologue by I. Shawn McElhinney)

It was to be added to the Other Approved* Sites or Links of Interest category and will be when I return.

Normally I do the solemn language here for those who like medieval pomp but I do not have time to do so right now. So simply consider these to be promulgated in the same sense as the last update's links were.

With God's will and your readership, I will blog again though if it is a longshot that this will happen in 2003. So until nexttime, may all of my readers have a happy, holy, and safe Christmas season as well as a blessed new year.

Briefly on Colonel Muammar Khadafi's Situation:

With the capture of Saddam Hussein, the last thing the Democrats needed was the kind of agreement reached between the US/Britain and Colonel Muammar Khaddafi. Alan King once said that "compared to Khadafi the Ayatollah Khomeini is a choirboy." So this agreement being reached with Khadafi and the US/Britain alliance is significant.

Some commentators are claiming that this is because "after long reflection, Khadafi wants Lybia to rejoin the international community." Let us be honest folks: the one thing that brought Khadafi to the table was not some irenic desire to "rejoin the world community" or platitudes of that sort. It was how the US made short work of Al Queda's stronghold in Afghanistan and Iraq's pretense as a military power in the Middle East and Colonel Khadafi did not want Lybia (with its stockpile of WMD's) to be a potential future target.

As I once noted on this weblog, a quote from former President Ronald Reagan on peace through strength which directly applies to this situation, I will post it anew here:

The purpose of our military is simple and straightforward: We want to prevent war by deterring others from the aggression that caused war. If our efforts are successful we will have peace and never be forced into battle. There will never be the need to fire a single shot. That is the paradox of deterrence". [Radio Address to the Nation; Armed Forces Day May 21, 1983]

Obviously deterrence did not work with Al Queda or Hussein. But wait and see how many more rogue nations like Lybia do not look at a determined America to engage the terrorists militarily and go "hmmmmm, maybe we should do what Lybia did." And that my friends is why a country that values a strong military and has the fortitude to use it when needed will always achieve much more of their objectives than a country without the will to use their military might.

The bottom line is this: when you have the force and the will to use it, it is amazing how other nations even if they do not like you will at the very least respect you.

More on the Papacy and Ideas:
(Societas Christiana vs. Rerum Novarum)

[Note: This piece was written back in early November. Therefore, it is recommended that this post be read in light of one blogged since that time which touches for the most part on the same subject matter. - ISM]

In responding to my previous thread on this subject, Tim covers a fair amount of ground in his response to me. I do not have the time to go over everything he said at this point -particularly about Platonist views of which I previously discussed in reasonable detail in this earlier post.{1}

For the aforementioned reason, I will at this time bypass the parts of the post on Platonist philosophy and focus only on what Tim noted about references to Brian Tierney and to some degree touch on the subject of the methodology of historical study in general. Tim's words will be in purple font.

Shawn complains that I call the historian Brian Tierney a “Catholic”, for in Shawn’s estimation Tierney has no right to the term “Catholic” at all because “ I however highly doubt that Brian Tierney could honestly make any of the Church's Professions of Faith.”

If Tim is attempting to claim that Brian Tierney is Catholic in the same sense that I am Catholic, then yes, I take issue with this. Hopefully I can briefly set out my reasons here for his consideration as well as the consideration of other readers of this humble weblog.

Here again we see the problems that BPism causes in terms of providing epistemologically-humble responses to criticisms.

For those not aware, BP is Tim's shorthand for "biblical Platonism." I note this so that his abbreviation is not confusing to those who have not read his response to me before reading this response to him.

For BPs like Shawn the term “Catholic” is a simple synonym for “the Church’s Professions of Faith”, and so much the worse for the historical witness.

Allow me to clarify this briefly. To me, "Catholic" as denoted in capital C denotes those who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. And those who are "Catholic" as they profess the same faith must be able to make a timely profession of it. The currently prescribed form for this -as all forms since 1870 have contained either expressly (as in the post-Vatican I Professio) or tacitly (Pope Paul VI's 1967 Professio){2} require acceptance of the dogma of papal infallibility. Thus, any Catholic is required to profess this dogma or else they have no business claiming the moniker whatsoever.

Therefore, if Tim by referring to Brian Tierney as a "Catholic historian" means to say that he is a "Roman Catholic historian",{3} then my concern here is not unjustified. Again, I do not refer to people like this as "Reformed theologians", or as authentic voices of the Reformed tradition. Therefore, I simply request the same treatment on Tim's part for those who could not in good conscience make a Roman Catholic profession of faith to please do not refer to them as "Catholics" if by saying this he means in communion with the pope.

To be a faithful Catholic, one must accept the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church. There is no way around this and those who cannot or do not -as I strongly suspect Tierney cannot on the dogma of papal infallibility- have no business being classified as Catholic. It is that simple really.

At the end of the day it simply does not matter to a BP whether or not “the Church’s Professions of Faith” can actually be confirmed by history...

Tim seems to misunderstand the very notion of what "faith" is. As Newman in his discourse Faith and Private Judgment defines the term as well or better than I could, I will reference him now on this point:

[I]n the first place, what is faith? It is assenting to a doctrine as true, which we do not see, which we cannot prove, because God says it is true, who cannot lie. And further than this, since God says it is true, not with His own voice, but by the voice of His messengers, it is assenting to what man says, not simply viewed as a man, but to what he is commissioned to declare, as a messenger, prophet, or ambassador from God. [Faith and Private Judgment: From Discourses to Mixed Congregations (c. 1849)]

The Scriptures define faith as the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews xi,1). This is the sense that I refer to when I refer to Tierney making a Profession of Faith as required by the Church of which Tim would claim he is a member.{4} Now whether or not he can do this is of course something that neither Tim nor I can answer definitively. However, based on what I have read of his work (which admittedly is not expansive), I have serious doubts that Tierney can do so anymore than the characters I refer to above who anathematize the Reformed divines can claim to be truly "Reformed" according to the criteria established by your divines for this.

We all have our pre-qualifications here and to my knowledge, every Reformed individual must be able to adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith and must accept John Calvin as an orthodox Christian. Unless Tim would extend his classification of who is and is not "Reformed" to include those who would either (i) not accept the WCF as binding or (ii) who would affirm the proposition that John Calvin is unregenerate, he should recognize that I am merely taking the same principles here and applying them to who is and is not properly recognized as a faithful Catholic (i.e. one in communion with the Roman Church).

Brian Tierney in his work gives ample evidence to call into question whether or not he accepts papal infallibility as a dogma of faith. If he does not accept it, then those who refer to him as a "Catholic historian" -if by Catholic that term in the sense that I use that term (i.e. "Roman Catholic")- should not do so. I respect the conscience of Mr. Tierney as much as anyone else but the Catholic Church has certain standards which all believers must profess. If they do not do so, they are not reckoned to be in her communion. It is that simple really.

[F]or again, the only thing that “really matters” is the supra-historical Idea that lies behind the history so invoked.

I can just see the sarcasm dripping off of your words like fat off of my George Foreman Grill™ when I am cooking hamburgers...

Vatican I, a statement of a Church that in good BP fashion believes itself to have infallible access to immutable truths, explicitly states that “the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church” is Papal absolutism.

With a proper understanding of how "understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church" (St. Vincent of Lerens as quoted by Vatican I's Dei Filius) while at the same time doing so "in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding" (ibid.), then yes the theological convention of which you speak is properly understood.

Therefore, by the rigid deductive logic that is the BP hallmark (and indeed, the hallmark of all forms of Platonism, even ones that don’t reference the Bible), anyone who thinks that spacetime history could ever contradict “the Church’s Professions of Faith” is just flat intellectually unbelievable.

History is a complex mosaic. Furthermore, with the exception of dogmatic facts,{5} the Church lays no claim to infallibility as it pertains to history.

They are guilty of trying to get us all to believe that 2+2 actually equals 465, or that circles can be square, or that bachelors can be married men.

There is of course no agenda in Tierney's work I suppose. Or to state it differently: he is absolutely free from all possibility of interpreting evidences in a non-objective manner.

Apparently those silly "geometrically-challenged papists" simply *must* be using the historical record as Silly Putty™ but historians who take a position that support your a priori position -that Rome *must* be wrong- are above any and all criticism. (Or any and all evidence tampering or misinterpreting.)

Ergo, since Brian Tierney actually believes that the historical record does not support a Vatican I type of Papalism, Brian Tierney is not a “Catholic” and cannot be trusted in his historical research.

I did not say that. What I said was that if Brian Tierney does not accept the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility, he is not a faithful Catholic. Whatever his personal views of the historical record are beyond that do not pertain to what I have said.

There are so many ways to critique this question-begging mode of approach.

I have seen no criticisms yet that I would argue are substantive ones. And since the very notion of a revealed religion -or even of a belief in deity- is seen by those who canonize as infallible the profane sciences as a "question-begging" enterprise,{6} one should be careful when hurling what appear to be merely bent pieces of wood at others lest they boomerang back on you.

For instance, we might attempt to historically argue that the notion that being "Catholic" is a synonym for "agreeing with the Pope" was an 11th century innovation foisted upon the Church by Pope Gregory VII, and not the ancient patristic principle that "True Catholics" like Shawn M. think it is.

It depends on what one means by "agree."{7} The pope does not tell me what car to drive, what time to eat dinner, what clothes to wear, where to live, what to do for a living, what parish to attend, what private devotionals to practice, how often to engage in physical exercise, where or when to take vacations, what books to read, or a whole cornucopia of subjects that come into my everyday life. (Nor does he tell me what schools of theological or philosophical thought to embrace.) I am afraid for one who does not care for simplistic and un-nuanced assertions that your comments in the above paragraph are exactly that: simplistic and un-nuanced.

We might point out that Shawn would need to provide us with a record that the Roman Catholic Magisterium, of which the layman Shawn McElhinney is not a part and for which he does not and cannot speak, has formally censured Brian Tierney for departing from "Catholic dogma".

I am not sure if they have or have not. However, the current Profession of Faith as of 1989 with the Oath of Fidelity can be read HERE. They are both required by anyone who would teach in the name of the Catholic Church. To my knowledge, Brian Tierney does not do this so he would only be bound to the Profession of Faith part - which for the record I have myself made on my Miscellaneous BLOG.

Strictly speaking, I am not required to make such a public profession as I do not teach in any capacity as a Catholic instructor; however I did so anyway. Part of the reason is that I am to some extent a speculative theologian and therefore want my readers to realize that I do not depart from the teachings of the Catholic Church.{8}

We might wonder why the prestigious Catholic Historical Review saw fit to publish numerous "pro-Catholic" articles by Tierney.

According to The American Catholic Historical Association -of whom the Catholic Historical Review is their publication journal- they are quite ecumenical in their membership as well as who can hold cabinet posts in their organization:

Amid the current concern for ecumenism and secular causes, the Association plays a positive role. It welcomes non-Catholics among its members and has elected many of them to its committees, its Executive Council, and even its presidency. As for its Catholic members, far from separating them from their colleagues outside its own ranks, it brings them into closer contact in the ways described below and at the same time helps them to preserve their religious identity, which is necessary for any meaningful dialogue among Christians and for any effective diffusion of truly human values in the world of today.

At present there are approximately 1,100 members. They live in almost every state of the Union and in many foreign countries. Some of them are specialists in American history and others in ancient, medieval, modern European, Latin American, and other fields. Some concentrate on ecclesiastical and others on political, intellectual, cultural, social, and economic history. Some are professors, writers, and students of history, and others are amateurs who wish to deepen their knowledge of history and to support the various undertakings of the Association.

In short, there is a broad range of members in this group. Presumably members can publish in the journal and Brian Tierney as a member of the Association -to say nothing of being a past president of the Association- would be allowed to do so.

...and why Tierney's "Catholic" opponent in the debate from which I cited, Fr. Stickler, chose to engage Tierney on the level of his historical arguments rather than on the level of him supposedly "not being Catholic".

I have not read that exchange so I am not certain. Perhaps Fr. Stickler thought he could debate the subject from history. He has been the Vatican Archivist for a long time so he has access to an enviable amount of information. Fr. Stickler -who is now a Cardinal btw- is an esteemed canonist with a doctorate in that field. (Hence it is the area where he would speak with the greatest of authority.) However, he is not a specialist in either theology nor history.{9}

And as one who has taken issue in writing with certain positions of Cardinal Stickler on theological, liturgical, and historical grounds myself -the latter pertaining to Church history to some extent and liturgical history in particular- I cannot say that I would necessarily endorse his methods of advancing arguments in either of those realms. But as I have not seen the articles you are referring to, admittedly I am merely speculating here.

We might point out that Shawn is treating the word "Catholic" exactly the way he treats the word "Papacy"--that is, as an immutable Idea standing outside of space and time and to which space and time are held accountable by human minds that infallibly grasp those Ideas and cannot err in applying them. And so forth.

Tim it seems that you are not presuming that there are qualifications for the proper usage of the term. Would you accept someone who denied the divinity of Christ as a Christian??? Would you allow me -someone who rejects Calvin's Institutes, the Westminster Confession of Faith, as well as sola scriptura, sola fide, a Calvinist understanding of TULIP, and who affirms all Catholic dogmas- to refer to myself as a "Reformed Christian"??? For some reason I highly doubt it.

My guess is that you would see my rejecting benchmarks of the Reformed tradition as the very litmus test to deny me the usage of that moniker. Therefore, how difficult is it for you to recognize the same principle with the Catholic Church: that whatever one thinks of her she has certain guidelines which are required for being able to claim that one is a faithful Catholic???

But let us dispsense with the complicated philosophical and historical-theological critiques and note merely the fact that all such criticisms as Shawn gives totally ignore the realm of spacetime history in favor of the alleged supra-historical “timeless truths” that are supposedly self-evident as “the divinely-willed order of things”.

Again, Tim is really making more of what I have said than what I actually said. If he wants to refer to Brian Tierney as a "historian" then fine, I have no objections to that. (Because he is.) But to assert that he is a "Catholic historian" is another subject altogether.

This is not an answer to the work of a man such as Tierney, who has spent hundreds of hours poring over actual Medieval manuscripts from the relevant periods of Church history and has advanced numerous lines of argument against Vatican I’s dogmatic declaration about what history reveals.

And of course there have been lines advanced against Tierney's propositions as well. I have frankly not been impressed by Tierney's theological acumen in the slightest from what I have read of it. But that is beside the point.

Tim, you and I both agree that history is a complex subject. However, we seem to disagree on the concept of who can or cannot be properly called a "Catholic historian." I assert that Tierney cannot because -based on what I have read of his work- he quite obviously does not accept the dogma of papal infallibility.

Again, it does not matter what his personal views historically are -as history is not an area that the Church claims infallibility in except for very rare instances.{10} What matters is if he accepts what the Catholic Church teaches must be accepted de fide. To my knowledge he does not; however if you have evidence that sufficiently calls into question my presumption here, I will gladly look it over. Until then, I can only go based on what I have read of Tierney's work.

Of course, what the sources say simply does not matter...

I did not say this Tim. You are presuming it seems that Tierney somehow has some superior understanding of these sources that merits my consideration and that of others. Again, his theological arguments on supposed magisterial "errors" that I have read are very unconvincing to someone such as myself who has read extensively on those subjects and is reasonably capable of making certain key distinctions that he apparently is not able to (or does not want to) do.{11}

because for BPs like Shawn “True Catholicism” subsists in agreeing with whatever the Church professes to believe and then going to the sources to find confirmation for what has already been accepted.

I am wondering if Tim understands what the notion of "faith" in a proposition really entails. He sounds too much like the Apostle Thomas here whether he realizes it or not.

A priori epistemology trumps a posteriori examination every time--and as Tierney noted with regard to Fr. Stickler, the result is a fundamental confusion of "apologetics" with "doing history".

Again, there are historians of every stripe who take wildly contradictory positions on the evidence. I am sure that Tim would not disagree with the notion that everyone interprets whatever evidence they come across through a particular hermeneutic. I am not about to deny this - indeed to my knowledge I never have. Nor as far as I can tell has Tim --whose entire epistemology thread which he focused on in the two year interim between our dialogues depends for any effectiveness whatsoever on this very principle.

I have maintained and continue to maintain that history is not a supernatural science but purely a natural one. Further still, philosophy is also a natural science as well. Theology though as a science of the supernatural is a bridge between the natural and the supernatural and is at heart a supernatural science as well. Understanding of theology of course relies to some extent on elements of the natural order. There is no denying that fields such as philosophy, science, history, archeology, and the like all have their roles to play in this endeavour. However, a Catholic does not -indeed cannot- approach these subjects from a purely naturalistic plane of inquiry.

For that matter, no one who adheres to a religion that claims to be a revealed religion can do this. But it seems that Tierney -much like Tim- does not realize this. Catholics do not believe that the doctrine of the Church can be reasoned out of the historical record. All that we do believe is that the historical record attests to various Catholic doctrines in varying states of clarity.

Catholics have a healthy respect for Church history certainly. However, we do not form our beliefs from the records of history. Until Tim recognizes this, it is difficult to see how we can avoid talking past one another to some extent. Tim does not have to agree with this outlook of course; however, those of us who hold that those claiming to be Catholics should be faithful to certain core principles that are required for Catholics to profess have not only the right but also the duty to do our parts to make sure that this distinction is maintained. Otherwise, we would be not be true to our principles any more than Tim would be to allow anyone and their Bible (or even those who rejected the Bible) to claim to be "Reformed" who rejected key Reformed distinctions and beliefs.

The Church has spoken and cannot be wrong; the "True Catholic" cannot be wrong in how he understands what the Church has said; therefore, the True Catholic does not have to engage his critics on ground that does not beg all the questions in advance, for his critics are not in the Church at all and are therefore axiomatically wrong.

Where have I ever refused to engage critics of Catholicism on philosophical, theological, historical, or any other grounds Tim???

This is precisely how BPs like Shawn operate, for do they not have explicit Papal approval for this self-referential mode of approach?

I have already commented on the reference from Humani Generis which I might add was a reference to theologians and their role as scientists of the divine science in the Catholic Church. Apologetics is its own discipline and has its strengths and weaknesses as any discipline does. However, as Catholic theologians do nothing with Catholic teaching that Reformed theologians do not do with the various Reformed confessions and "reformation" era principles -using them as the frames of reference for theological expounding and/or inquiry- I fail to see why Tim is trying to make this appear as if it is a one-sided situation.

Do you not have recourse to the Bible to attempt to prove sola scriptura and sola fide Tim??? Of course you do. Do you not appeal to the Bible to attempt to demonstrate TULIP??? Again, of course you do. I doubt you are going to criticize me or anyone else for being axiomatic while you accept sola scriptura and sola fide -not to mention TULIP- as axioms to your particular weltanschauung.

Again, Roman Catholics are welcome to approach the history of the Church in this self-referential manner if they so desire. What they are not welcome to do is pretend that promulgating axioms as if the Christian religion is a type of Euclidean geometrical system that all “reasonable” people will just see if their faculties are operating properly is anything other than a highly debatable way of thinking.

I will avoid the temptation to point to the "inward testimony of the Spirit requires no proofs" kind of references in your own Reformed tradition viz the Scriptures.{12} The principle is the same (i.e. that there are certain points which transcend the natural sciences), the difference is only in its application. And of course recourse to the various "solas" of the "reformation" are in and of themselves the very sort of axioms that your divines promulgate as if they are "self-evident" to anyone with a "proper understanding of the Scriptures."


Notes:

{1} Where I go over presuppositional paradigms of philosophical thought in general.

{2} Promulgation of one symbol does not annul previous symbols. Nonetheless, if one needs more proof than that I can supply it.

The proof that the 1967 Professio implied this dogma is found with recourse to Pope Paul VI's 1968 Credo of the People of God which enunciated all the dogmas of the Catholic Church. (And was proclaimed in the period where various people were making the wrong-headed assertion that Vatican II had abrogated previously defined dogmas or previously enunciated doctrines of faith.) For this reason, anyone who would interpreted the 1967 Professio apart from the 1968 Credo would show that they have absolutely no understanding of Catholic dogmatic theology.

{3} Though I do not like the term "Roman Catholic" and what it denotes, for this example using it in my response is unavoidable. (I ask therefore that my brethren of the Eastern Churches please excuse this recourse to Latinizing on my part.)

{4} It is also worth noting that by this understanding of "faith" -which I might add is quite biblical- that if someone can prove a proposition, then there is no faith involved.

{5} These are facts such as "X was a valid pope", "Z was a valid ecumenical council", "source A really does teach doctrine B", and stuff like this: comprising the most minute of historical events or situations.

{6} Need I remind you of the very "transcendental" theology of certain Reformed divines such as Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen: they are every bit as "question-begging" as you assert that Catholic positions are.

{7} And while it is not the earliest example I could give, the sixth century Profession of Faith referred to as the Formula of Hormisdas which concluded the Acacian schism (482-519) is as suitable an example as any. One translation of this text reads as follows:

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse. This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus ["the Cat"] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter ["the Fuller"] of Antioch with all his followers together together with the followers of all those mentioned above.

Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome. [Pope Hormisdas I: Formula of Hormisdas as Subscribed to By the Eastern Episcopate (circa 519 AD)]

Obviously, the idea of what is and is not Catholic -a concept directly pertaining to what is and is not doctrinally in agreement with the Pope of Rome- is hardly a novelty of Pope Gregory VII (r. 1073-1085) except in some matters of application of that principle.

{8} As sometimes with more complex enunciations possible incongruities may present themselves; ergo I do this as a service to my readers.

{9} I have heard good things about his book on the history of clerical celibacy though. And I would not of course want to presume that he would necessarily handle that subject the same way he does liturgical history: after all we all have our areas of strength and weakness in these kinds of subjects.

{10} See footnote five.

{11} He seems to presume that his view is correct and tries to construe those who take issue with him theologically as being inherently dishonest in their methodology.

{12} To highlight a certain axiomatic principle that your divines propound under the presumption (it would seem) to exclude the Scriptures from the same kind of criticisms that you want to claim that Catholics do not allow viz history.

On the Meaning of Life:
(Dialogue With Albert Cipriani)

Albert's words will be in orange font and his foil's words in darkgreen. My words will be in regular font.


SSSSS wrote: "Give me your thoughts/arguments on the issue of the 5 senses."

I think an argument can be made that our intellect is our sixth sense, so to speak. It's ability as a pattern recognition machine and extrapolation device has led to more perceptions than have our rather poorly-developed 5 senses. Animals can sense this world far better than we can; it's our ability to perceive what we sense that enables us to sense far more than animals.

We could indeed say that intellect or cognition is the sixth sense. And by blending the 5 traditional senses and the intellect in a kind of intuitive gumbo can give us capabilities far beyond what any other animals have. (At least that we are aware of.)

For example, animals, like us, note the rising and setting sun. But unlike us, we perceive in that rising and setting the elapse of 1/365th of a year and extrapolate through calendars the changing length of each day and the height of the tides. Thus, we perceive far more than what our five senses detect.

Indeed.

"My atheist friend seems to be true to his belief in admitting that all of life has no real meaning. He is just living based on what can be perceived. If it can't be perceived then it ain't real/true. How should I deal with this?"

If he thinks that our life has no meaning, that it evolved by chance processes, then how does he explain our cortexes? Our cortexes are the embodiment of meaning in that they are the means whereby meaning is detected. Like how our eye balls are the embodiment of vision in that they are the means of vision.

Not only that but the very function of eyeballs with the numerous lenses involved is complex far beyond any computer. The idea that they would develop out of nowhere over billions of years is as fanciful of a notion as believing in flying reindeers and sleighs. Where is the rationale for this "something out of nothing" viewpoint???

Why would natural selection have selected for the evolution of our cortexes if those cortexes were not actually detecting what is meaningful? Isn't it a bit ironic that your friend can use his brain to disclaim the existence of what all brains detect? Your friend's attitude is analogous to someone claiming that air does not exist because behind his double-pane windows he can't detect the breeze that's moving all the trees.

Indeed. We know of the existence of many poisonous gases as a result of science and our technology which enable us to locate them. But did they merely come into being with our technology or were they there all along??? And if they were there all along even though they could not (in many cases) be tasted, seen, smelled, etc, why is it so difficult to conceive of Infinite Intelligence???

God is the ultimate answer to the ultimate question. And atheism is essentially two things:

1) It is the notion that nothing can come from something if we simply factor enough time into the equation.

2) It is the person stopping at some arbitrary point of their choosing and refusing to ask further questions.

Those points outline atheism in a nutshell and the rest is just commentary.

Why did Nature evolve wings and feathers? Doesn't the fact that birds seem to be supported by the air prove that air exists? Likewise, doesn't the fact that humans seem to derive meaning out of thin air prove that meaning exists?

Plus, your friend's assertion is self-refuting. To assert that life has no meaning is to assert that all assertions regarding the meaning of life are meaningless... including the one that your friend is partial to, that life has no meaning. If his assertion is true, it is as meaningless a statement as its contrary.

Precisely. It is like the question "do the laws of identity and non-contradiction exist???" To answer the question is to presuppose the question. And if they do not exist then we have no way whatsoever of knowing if anything is true. Therefore, if we are to make any sense out of what is around us, we have to presume that those laws are real because we have no way whatsoever to prove whether they are or are not. And of course believing in something which cannot be definitively proven involves something anathema to the atheist and agnostic: it involves faith.

"He asserts that emotions, love, etc. aren't real."

Then why does he act as if they are real? That's nothing short of insane, or at least ironic. Like a guy who disavows the existence of extra terrestrials on the basis of his latest communications with the mother ship.

This is where instincts come into the equation which enable us and all creatures to survive in situations where we are not capable of exercising rational thought. For example, if you slip out of a tree, your first instinct is to grab at surrounding branches. If the person had to think about whether they should grab branches to break their fall or not, they would probably be dead.

Instincts exist for a reason. To say that they can "evolve" over time is as silly as saying that if someone flaps their arms they can eventually fly. For things happen so quickly in the wild that there is no basis for adaptation most of the time. And the very notion of adaptation involves some elements that cannot be empirically measured.

For example, instincts are linked to survival in some form or another. But why would that be the case if there is nothing worth living for??? Further still, reason itself is a matter of faith as I noted already. For how can we truly and objectively prove that any of our thoughts have any relation whatsoever to reality??? We have to presume that they do but we cannot prove it. Again, without faith there can be no reason.

But what use is faith unless there is something (or someone) to believe in which has the answers to the questions we ask. And the ultimate question we can ask is "why do we exist???" The ultimate answer to the ultimate question is "because God made us." Can we definitively prove this??? Of course not. However, we cannot prove either (i) the existence of certain laws that make rational discourse possible or (ii) that anything we can conceive of has any relation whatsoever to reality.

So essentially everyone has faith. The only real difference is that the theist is honest and admits to this while the atheist is like the liberals in the media who deny that they have any bias whatsoever.

No doubt, your friend would agree with you that unicorns aren't real either. But I bet he doesn't spend half as much time chasing down that species of unreality as he does chasing after certain emotions.

He perceives that such an enterprise would be futile. But why does he believe this??? And how can he prove definitively that this enterprise would be futile??? No he cannot. However, on an accumulation of evidences or grounds of credibility at some point he will conclude that chasing down unicorns (particularly the invisible pink kind) is futile. Otherwise his ceasing the activity is totally arbitrary. And since he cannot prove that there are no unicorns (invisible pink ones or otherwise) the assumption he is making is at some level an act of faith from which he grounds his reasoning on the matter.

Ask him why he buys his girlfriend chocolates, why he does anything to foster her love of him if he truly believes that her love of him is unreal?

Expressed in moral terms, if, as Saint Augustine says, all that is, is good, then all that isn't, is not good. In other words, morality involves our choice of what's more real over what's less real. If this is true, then your friend acts immorally when he gives his girl flowers and thereby fans the flames of unreal emotions.

Indeed. And in psychiatry those who talk to people who are not really there are recognized as psychologically unstable. So the atheist who believes that emotions are not real but who acts nonetheless as if they are is little different functionally speaking than the fellow at the funny farm talking to his invisible teal chicken. The only difference is that the guy at the farm does not know any better. The atheist who prides himself on being a "freethinker" not only knows better but by the very claims he makes (of being "smarter than thou") involves a tacit requirement that he be held to a higher standard.