Interpreting the interpreter

[Magnanimity]

How many time have you all run across this Protestant line of reasoning when someone (James White is an excellent example) makes the claim that the Magisterium as an infallible interpreter of Sacred Scripture does little good for the Catholic because since the individual Catholic is not infallible in the special way in which the bishops are, Catholics therefore need an interpreter of the infallible intrepretation, then they need an interpretation of that interpretation, and on ad infinitum. I feel like just about every single Protestant (whether scholar or layman) with whom I interact on Catholicism at some point will raise this issue.

There seems to be a self-destructive irony to all of this though, and I find it odd that fellows of such high calibur like Norm Geisler, James White, etc. keep making this self-destructive claim. It’s self-destructive for them to make it because whether in their writings or their debates, what do they do with the utmost ease and frequency?? – they quote the Counciliar documents to give you the “official” Catholic teaching of the Church!! But, wait a minute, you can’t out of one side of your mouth attack the Church as being the infallible interpreter, which is itself in need of infallible interpretation and then out of the other side of your mouth quote the Councils like you would quote the New York Times.

In other words, when White and Geisler and others claim that we need an infallible intepreter of the infallible interpretations set forth in the Councils, they certainly don’t act like* they* need infallible interpreters of the conciliar documents. No, they can (and do) just read the documents. If they can do this, why can’t Catholics? I don’t get it. Maybe I’m missing something about their argument, but there seems to be a self-destructive double standard going on here. After all, if it were true that this infinite regressive need for infallible interpretations were necessary in order to know the truths contained in the conciliar docs, then it would make it impossible for them to read the docs and come to know the official teachings of the Church because they deny infallibility of themselves, right?

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Magnanimity:

In other words, when White and Geisler and others claim that we need an infallible intepreter of the infallible interpretations set forth in the Councils, they certainly don’t act like* they* need infallible interpreters of the conciliar documents. No, they can (and do) just read the documents. If they can do this, why can’t Catholics? I don’t get it. Maybe I’m missing something about their argument, but there seems to be a self-destructive double standard going on here.

I think you do misunderstand it. The argument is a reduction to absurdity that is meant to show that everyone can use their normal faculties to understand and given text. It is not arguing that Catholics are a special case, but that everyone has rational access to texts and that there are no special cases.

Essentially, the protestant argument is that Catholic claim that an infallible text is no good without and infallible interpreter is special pleading. We would argue that Catholics violate this principle by not applying it to the texts that the infallible interpreter himself produces. It is like the csomological argument in which the skeptic asks who created God. In that argument you can posit an unmoved mover, but in this argument there is no such convenient stopgap to end the regression because the point of failure lies within infallible texts and the ability of these to be communicated without an infallible interpretation.

ken

 

[Hananiah]

Here’s a good rebuttal to this type of argument:
Upon This (Not So) Slippery Rock

How many time have you all run across this Protestant line of reasoning when someone (James White is an excellent example) makes the claim that the Magisterium as an infallible interpreter of Sacred Scripture does little good for the Catholic because since the individual Catholic is not infallible in the special way in which the bishops are, Catholics therefore need an interpreter of the infallible intrepretation, then they need an interpretation of that interpretation, and on ad infinitum.

Some statements are perspicuous. They are so clear that they admit of only one possible interpretation. And the Magisterium can be perspicuous when it wants to. Moreover, if everany disagreement arises over the correct interpretation of Magisterial documents, the Magisterium can promptly settle it.

 

[Magnanimity]

Hey Ken,

Jeremiah here, your old pal from CARM.org. This is an interesting reply on several fronts. I think the Church would agree (or at least one of her greatest spokesmen, St. Thomas Aquinas, would agree) that there is a definite sense in which the meaning of the text is in the text itself. And although the Scriptures are sacred, so that to read them is not merely like reading Homer’s writings or the NY Times, there still remains this truth that the meaning of the texts is in the texts themselves. Any other view ends one in major hermeneutical problems, it would seem. There is also a sense in which the Sacred Scriptures are clear, though perhaps not crystal clear is some key areas (e.g., that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father entailing a Divine Trinity or that there are two wills in the one Second Person of the Trinity). So, it seems that here are at least 2 important areas in which there would be substantial common ground among Catholics and non-Catholic Christians.

It seems clear to me though that as James White himself says, it makes little sense and seems practically irrelevant to do so much arguing for infallible bishops if the Church Herself is not infallible. And it seems fairly clear to me that the teaching of Vatican II’s Dei Verbum and a whole host of recent theologians are unified in affirming that there is a general charism of infallibility possessed by the Church in a broad and general way. Of course, there is a specific sense of infallibility as it pertains only to the bishopric (with an even more specific sense for the bishop of Rome), but at the same time, it seems necessary to predicate infallibility of the Church universal. There must be an epistemic unbroken chain from the infallible God to the common believer. In other words, what use is it if the bishop of Rome or the Bible is infallible if there is no certainty that the laity can infallibly receive the teachings? Hence, infallibility must also be a property of the Church. The unbroken chain goes from God to his special messengers and finally infallibly received by His common people. It seems evident to me that if any link of infallibility is removed from this chain, you are left with uncertainty. In such a case, one could speak of reasonability as regards opinions regarding theological truth, but one could not speak of knowledge, since knowledge presupposes infallibility. So, I see nothing special as regards infallibility as it pertains to Catholics. In fact, it seems a metaphysical and epistemic necessity that the Church be infallible, else She has no knowledge, only reasoned belief.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Jeremiah here, your old pal from CARM.org. This is an interesting reply on several fronts.

hey jeremiah (I actually didn’t know your name before, just your handle).

I think the Church would agree (or at least one of her greatest spokesmen, St. Thomas Aquinas, would agree) that there is a definite sense in which the meaning of the text is in the text itself.

The better thinkers I have seen take this more moderate position. Aquinas himself, though I haven’t studied his position, seems likely from his empiricism to hold to this.

there still remains this truth that the meaning of the texts is in the texts themselves. Any other view ends one in major hermeneutical problems, it would seem.

I would agree. The way some people argue it, the text itself is almost a irrelevent to the interpretation which must be delivered straight from the Spirit to the mind.

It seems clear to me though that as James White himself says, it makes little sense and seems practically irrelevant to do so much arguing for infallible bishops if the Church Herself is not infallible.

It makes more sense to argue for an authoritative church, the infallbility is largely relegated to inconsequence if the logic is carried out.

And it seems fairly clear to me that the teaching of Vatican II’s Dei Verbum and a whole host of recent theologians are unified in affirming that there is a general charism of infallibility possessed by the Church in a broad and general way.

While this does solve the regress problem, it seems to me that it creates a whole host of others. In the same way the more nebulous protestant claims for “essential beliefs” are attacked, it seems this rather nebulous claim for “general infallibility” can be attacked. After all, is this charism applied to all beliefs, or just a few? All people or just a few? Does it always obtain or can it be limited. While it might solve a theoretical problem, it reduces to a practically unproveable assertion and one that appears to go against common experience. The debates over the interpretation of key Roman dogmas such as EENS, the liturgy and so forth go along way to questioning just what exactly would this general charism do…

Of course, there is a specific sense of infallibility as it pertains only to the bishopric (with an even more specific sense for the bishop of Rome), but at the same time, it seems necessary to predicate infallibility of the Church universal.

If you argue that infallibility is necessary to knowledge, yes.

It seems evident to me that if any link of infallibility is removed from this chain, you are left with uncertainty. In such a case, one could speak of reasonability as regards opinions regarding theological truth, but one could not speak of knowledge, since knowledge presupposes infallibility.

yes. But then you might also argue that “knowledge” so defined is really not the normative state of the things in our mind. We primarily hold justified beliefs, not knowledge.

So, I see nothing special as regards infallibility as it pertains to Catholics. In fact, it seems a metaphysical and epistemic necessity that the Church be infallible, else She has no knowledge, only reasoned belief.

Yes, you can argue this way, but it seems to me if you do you introduce so many practical problems so as to make the system practically unworkable. It seems a better way out the problem is to acknowledge justified true belief as knowledge and focus on inerrancy of original texts with justified beliefs derived from them.

ken

 

[OfTheCross]

It makes more sense to argue for an authoritative church, the infallbility is largely relegated to inconsequence if the logic is carried out.

Ken,

I think that infallibility is more of a side issue and that the greater question is whether there is an authoritative Church. If there is an authoratative Church, which one is it.

It seems like many Reformed like to claim an authoritative Church, but while using the term “Church” they really mean “Churches”. What good are a bunch of authoritative Churches if they still disagree on fundamental doctrinal and moral issues? Are all denominations then authorative Churches?

If not all denominations are authoritative Churches, who decides what denominations are or are not?

I agree, we can run down a rabbit trail of infallibility while ignoring the much greater issue of authority. I am interested in your general view of authoritative Church(es).

Peter John

 

[OfTheCross]

It makes more sense to argue for an authoritative church, the infallbility is largely relegated to inconsequence if the logic is carried out.

I wouldn’t go as far as to say infallibility is relegated to inconsequence.

If there are contested views on major Christian doctrines or morals within the Scriptures, certainly it would be adventagious for someone (the Church) to be able to declare “this is Truth, that is Falsehood”. It can not state that “this is Truth” with a great degree of authority nor can the faithful believe that “this is Truth” with a great confidence without some notion of infallibility. The best an authoritative (but not infallible) Church can muster is “We think this is probably the Truth … and you are bound to believe it” in regards to this or that doctrine or moral dilemma.

Peter John

 

[II_Paradox_II]

I think that infallibility is more of a side issue and that the greater question is whether there is an authoritative Church. If there is an authoratative Church, which one is it.

I would agree as well. Ultimately, God desires one church with all Christians in unity, but we do not have that at a practical level. Ultimately I would argue for some sort of conciliarism inasmuch as it is possible.

There is no doubt in my mind that one church is better than many. This fact however, does not automatically infer that there is one church out there that holds this place while everyone else just thinks they are the church. You read the current fracturing of the church and the need for one church to imply that one church actually does exist among the options. I read the same data but come to the conclusion that we have a moral obligation as Christians to pursue unity and truth despite the fact that we have split from each other because that is the Lord’s desire, if not here then in the world to come. If Rome is the true church, then everyone needs to be one with them. If they are not, then they have sinfully asserted a role for themselves that God has not given them.

It seems like many Reformed like to claim an authoritative Church, but while using the term “Church” they really mean “Churches”. What good are a bunch of authoritative Churches if they still disagree on fundamental doctrinal and moral issues? Are all denominations then authorative Churches?

Part of this is because of the reality of the situation. We live in a world where the church is divided and we do out theology in context of that.

If not all denominations are authoritative Churches, who decides what denominations are or are not?

Those who hold more closely to the revelation of God hold more authority than those who do not. I think there is a value in apostolic succession, but that value lessens over time and as the church fragments. The fracturing of the church has taken away from Christians the comfort of having one church body just as the fracturing of the jewish theocracy deprived them of the same.

ken

 

[II_Paradox_II]

OfTheCross:

The best an authoritative (but not infallible) Church can muster is “We think this is probably the Truth … and you are bound to believe it” in regards to this or that doctrine or moral dilemma.

Practically speaking though you cannot define infallibility in such a way as to remove doubt. Even if you claim infallibility, how is one to know what criteria might come to bear in order to infallibly determine which statements are infallible? If you say your comment is infallble we don’t really know whether that is true unless we have infallible criteria for knowing when an infallible decree is made. In addition to this, you have the problem of interpretation and the various solutions to the problem already discussed.

These and other reasons are why I would argue that at a practical level the claim of infallibility is moot. The Roman doctrine of infallibility is so nuanced as to make it practically useless. There is no easy foolproof way to know when an infallible statement is made or whether you are interpreting it right. All the methods available are proximate and therefore corrupt the perfect certainty one might wish to gain by the charism.

As magnaminity said, the chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link. For instance, the common arguments between Catholics over whether all or part of Vat. II is infallible or even how it should be interpreted show these difficulties quite well.

ken

 

[II_Paradox_II]

just so you guys know, I can’t afford to put too much time in this thread as I have another one that is taking up a lot of time. I primarily jumped into this one to answer magnaminity’s question and I didn’t think it would go off in so many directions. Anyways, If I don’t respond much it’s because I don’t have enough time to cover all these things…

ken

 

[Magnanimity]

“(I actually didn’t know your name before, just your handle).”

Ha! Yeah, I thought that was the case, and it seems a little odd to exchange with you with you giving your name but I withholding mine.

“I would agree. The way some people argue it, the text itself is almost a irrelevent to the interpretation which must be delivered straight from the Spirit to the mind.”

Right. It certainly seems to me that something like that Divine enlightening would be req’d given such a view of interpretation.

“It makes more sense to argue for an authoritative church, the infallbility is largely relegated to inconsequence if the logic is carried out.”

I think I’m a bit confused. What would “authoritative church” amount to if not “infallible church?” Infallibility would seem to be a necessary, though perhaps not sufficient condition of an authoritative church.

“While this does solve the regress problem, it seems to me that it creates a whole host of others. In the same way the more nebulous protestant claims for “essential beliefs” are attacked, it seems this rather nebulous claim for “general infallibility” can be attacked. After all, is this charism applied to all beliefs, or just a few? All people or just a few? Does it always obtain or can it be limited.”

Well, I won’t minimize your concerns here, and I certainly understand a hesitancy toward this doctrine for the reasons you enumerate. Let me first state though, what I did before. This general argument for infallibility of the universal Church is one from epistemic necessity, as far as I can tell. In other words, I do not see how knowledge can take place without it, so I would argue from its being a necessary condition for the Church in order for Her to receive the infallible revelation from God.

Now, having said that, let me take an initial run at your specific questions here. The general infallibility would apply to the deposit of faith, as Dei Verbum seems to communicate. The document asserts that the Church will always persist in the whole “teaching, life, and worship” originally given to it in the apostolic deposit of the faith. And the negative way of stating the same thing would be to say that the Church will never defect from the faith once for all given to the saints. So, you could, like Francis Sullivan S. J. does, call it the “indefectibility” of the Church. And again, I don’t see anything specific to the Catholic Church in this regard. I think most Protestants would also assert this same sense of apostolicity, as in, the Church (whatever that might be for the non-Catholic) will never completely defect from the faith. It will always persist in, say, the gospel of Christ.

This is the sensus fidelium, as you might have heard it referred to before. Good examples of this sense of the faithful have been the two recent dogmas regarding the Blessed Mother. If you know the histories of how the two Popes went about ascertaining from the bishops of the world whether it was universally held in their various dioceses that Mary was Immaculately Conceived or Assumed into Heaven.

As for the last question, this sense of the faithful will always persist, since the Church cannot defect from the faith.

“While it might solve a theoretical problem, it reduces to a practically unproveable assertion and one that appears to go against common experience.”

I’m not sure what you mean here because it seems to be both a theologically and epistemically necessary argument, which would of course make it proveable. And, as I allude above, the sensus fidelium has been seen to be operative quite explicitly in recent years, as regards Marian dogmas, for example. So, it is actually a part of the experience of the Church.

 

[Magnanimity]

“The debates over the interpretation of key Roman dogmas such as EENS, the liturgy and so forth go along way to questioning just what exactly would this general charism do…”

What is “EENS?” And how do debates over the liturgy go against this doctrine? The Church has never been without vigorous debate, whether we start at the first ecumenical council (Nicea) or end with the most recent (Vatican II), so if you have no problem accepting a denial of Arianism or a belief in the NT canon or a belief that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and Son, all the while admitting that there was vigorous debates over all these issues, then why would the contemporary situation be any different for the Church?

“If you argue that infallibility is necessary to knowledge, yes.”

It is completely necessary to knowledge, since both justification and truth are necessary to knowing. ‘Fallible knowledge’ is oxymoronic.

“yes. But then you might also argue that “knowledge” so defined is really not the normative state of the things in our mind. We primarily hold justified beliefs, not knowledge.”

Perhaps with very speculative matters we primarily hold mere JB, but it is very often the case that we have knowledge in life and even in matters pertaining to theology, right?

“Yes, you can argue this way, but it seems to me if you do you introduce so many practical problems so as to make the system practically unworkable. It seems a better way out the problem is to acknowledge justified true belief as knowledge and focus on inerrancy of original texts with justified beliefs derived from them.”

OK, couple of thoughts here. I am far from being convinced that JTB is adequate for accounting for knowledge. I think JTB are necessary conditions, though not at all sufficient for accounting for knowledge. Gettier and many who followed him have quite convincingly argued against this, and it does not seem at all obvious that Plantinga or anyone else has overcome Gettier-type arguments. There has to be something more in knowledge, therefore, a proper “hooking up” and identification (or unity) of the knower and the thing known. I don’t know of any successful contemporary way of denying this.

Also, I don’t think anyone would get the idea, just from the Bible itself, that what believers are to have are mere justified beliefs. Knowledge seems much more likely to be what we are said to have. Whenever words like episteme or truth are used, this can only be done within a context of something much more robust than reasonable opinions.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

magnaminity -

I’ll get back to you, perhaps in a private message. I don’t have the time to get into the argument in depth here, though it is a very good topic.

You do make a good point about everyone believing in some sort of general charism, I have to think about it more but it does seem that this can solve at least some of your problem (though I don’t think it solves all of them).

ken

 

[Magnanimity]

Ken,

Gotcha! Yeah, I sent you a PM about this saying that I understand if you cannot go on with me on this discussion. No problema.

 

[OfTheCross]

I would agree as well. Ultimately, God desires one church with all Christians in unity, but we do not have that at a practical level. Ultimately I would argue for some sort of conciliarism inasmuch as it is possible.

Similar to Tim Enloe’s view, but quite bluntly this seems like a pipe dream and I don’t see how this could ever be practically acheived. Again, who is to decide who gets invited to this council and how much of a say they would have. How could this council then be seen as speaking for all of Christianity when a great deal of Christianity would undoubtedly be left out of such a council.
I can’t see the Catholic Church and the EO’s jumping at the chance to be a part of such a Counci either.
The only unifying conciliarism that I personally ever think may ever take place would be between the Catholic Church and the EO.

If Rome is the true church, then everyone needs to be one with them. If they are not, then they have sinfully asserted a role for themselves that God has not given them.

Agree. There is not a safe and fuzzy in between. And if the reformers were wrong, they sinfully asserted a role for themselves that God had not given them, and the Church still exists.

Those who hold more closely to the revelation of God hold more authority than those who do not. I think there is a value in apostolic succession, but that value lessens over time and as the church fragments. The fracturing of the church has taken away from Christians the comfort of having one church body just as the fracturing of the jewish theocracy deprived them of the same.

Of course, but who decides who holds more closely to the revelation of God, and holds closely enough to it to be considered an authoritative Church? It all become hopelessly arbitrary in the abscence of a visible authoritative Church to determine such things.

Did the fracturing of the Jewish theocracy deprive the Jews from a valid sin offering from being performed on the Day of Atonement, and of proper worship being lifted up to God? Does it follow that if the Jews had several groups all with different Temples and all offering competing sacrifices on the Day of Atonement that all would be equally efficacious in His eyes?

Is it not possible that where Adam and Israel failed, Christ and the His Bride the Church could not and did not fail?

If you don’t have time to answer any of this that’s fine. It’s just something to think about (and I don’t doubt you’ve already done a great deal of thinking about).

Peter John

 

[II_Paradox_II]

ok, I couldn’t resist a quick comment… but after this I’m out of here for a while…

Similar to Tim Enloe’s view, but quite bluntly this seems like a pipe dream and I don’t see how this could ever be practically acheived…The only unifying conciliarism that I personally ever think may ever take place would be between the Catholic Church and the EO.

There is some similarity, but I tend to be much more skeptical about the possibility of this in real life than he is (among other differences). I think it is more likely to be eschatological. I don’t even think that a council between Catholics and EO’s is possible unless they go against their foundational principles. There is too much water under the bridge and too much divergence since the split. This doesn’t mean we have no moral obligation to pursue unity, but it does mean that actually making it work IRL will not be easy or even possible outside of a miraculous work.

Agree. There is not a safe and fuzzy in between. And if the reformers were wrong, they sinfully asserted a role for themselves that God had not given them, and the Church still exists.

it goes both ways.

Of course, but who decides who holds more closely to the revelation of God, and holds closely enough to it to be considered an authoritative Church? It all become hopelessly arbitrary in the abscence of a visible authoritative Church to determine such things.

I actually have an interesting perspective here but no time to write it all out… anyways, If I get some time I’ll add more…

Until then, have a good day.

ken