Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: A Meditation for Guy Fawkes Day Link: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/a_meditation_for_guy_fawkes_day#8422 Post contents: John, Hi there. I'm a Protestant and a philosophy graduate student with strong interests in theology and political theology. I thought I'd take the chance to reply to your recent post piece by piece. You say: "If Christ’s promise to remain with His Church until the end of time did NOT mean that an institution would continuously remain in existence (if not at Rome, at least pace the Orthodox in the person of local bishops) which would serve to shepherd His flock, then by what authority do you speak about any religious matter? The Bible?" One could argue that just as the Roman Church has differences within it, so does the Church of Christ in general (which includes all of us, Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox alike). Christ is with us all. You also ask about authority. On my view, in light of analytic epistemology, the Bible has authority because it was inspired by God, but that has what we call an externalist construal. The Bible has authority just in case it was inspired by God, and since I believe that the Bible has authority, then if it was actually inspired by God, it is warranted for me to believe what it says. The obvious response is to ask me how I know. Well, I don't *know* that I know. But I don't think knowing how you know something is a requirement to know it (realize that the principle here would generate a regress). I have reason to suppose that the Bible is true, enough to warrant my belief, I think. So, the Gospels seems like reliable testimony from a fair historical perspective, and within the Gospels, Jesus speaks of the authority of Scripture as a whole. That's one reason. I could go on, but I want to address your other claims. "The New Testament itself was created by the Church, not the other way around." Wittgenstein pointed out once that just because we are certain that 2 and 2 are 4 does not mean that we are infallible calculators. In the same way, the Church can authorize the Bible without itself being infallible. "There were dozens of books floating around, claiming to be “gospels,” full of every kind of crackpot anecdote about Christ—including a few which portrayed him as a wicked prankster who performed malicious miracles. Each time another of these 3rd century fantasy novels pops up, like the “gospel” of Judas, it makes the cover of Time." I don't know what the argument is here. I take it that these gospels didn't take root because they didn't inspire people or match the testimony of those who knew Jesus. What is the problem? "It took over 300 years of debate among the Fathers of the Church to decide which books were authentically inspired." That makes it sound as if it were a continuous debate. It wasn't. Nonetheless, their criterion were reasonable and give us reason to trust the canon handed down to us. But that does not require that they be infallible. "The bishops who discerned which books were really the Word of God were in union with the Pope." Again, I don't think this, if true, is a problem for Protestants. My understanding is that "union with the Pope" meant something quite different then. It just means that they agreed on doctrine, not that the other bishops were in total submission to the Bishop of Rome. "These bishops baptized infants, venerated relics, prayed for the dead, gave absolution for sins, filled their churches with religious art, used incense at Mass and believed in the Eucharistic presence of Christ. Their churches venerated Mary as a Virgin, and most of their liturgies referred to her as “immaculate,” referred to her assumption into Heaven, and implored her intercession. These beliefs are older and more apostolic then the canon of the New Testament itself." I'm a Lutheran. We baptize infants, give absolution (although it isn't required), adore religious art, aren't opposed to incense or religious art, and believe in the Real Presence of Our Lord. We also believe that Mary was a virgin. But that are other things here to object to: the veneration of relics, masses for the dead, the legends about Mary's sinlessness and assumption, and the practice of asking for her intercession. These practices existed because of certain theological beliefs that, Protestants have argued, are in conflict with the best interpretation of Scripture either directly or in spirit. So we have reason to reject them. "These bishops based their decisions on which books were inspired largely on which ones had been used at the eucharistic liturgy in major cathedrals around the world—and on which ones accorded with the oral Tradition of interpreting Christian doctrine handed down from the apostles." This is also not in conflict with Protestantism. "In other words, the infallible word of God was compiled, edited, and fixed in its current form by a bunch of heathen, papist idolaters. And you still believe in this book?" I don't think that those at the Council of Nicea were heathen, papist idolaters. "It took Church councils to assert the reading of scripture which affirmed the Divinity of Christ, for that matter. Reject councils, and that too is up for grabs." It's not anymore up for grabs than reliable, but fallible scientific claims, like that the earth goes around the sun. There's a huge logical space there. Note, if you accept all councils, I think you're in trouble. If you like, I'm happy to link you to councils that condemn men to die through burning at the stake and affirm the Roman Church's authority to burn heretics alive. Canon 68 of the Fourth Lateran Council demands that Jews and 'Saracens' have a unique style of dress. Canons 69 and 70 are worse. Canon 27 of the Third Lateran Council authorizes the persecution and enslavement of heretics. In Session 8 of the Council of Constance, it is ordered that heretic John Wycliff's bones be exhumed and scattered. In Sessions 13-15 of the Council of Constance, it is decreed that communicants may not receive in both kinds. Doesn't that contradict current church practice? In Session 16 of the same council, John Hus is condemned to die. He was burned. It is for this reason, among others, that Luther stopped believing in the infallibility of councils. There are more examples, but I'll stop here. And I'll leave off the offensive remarks about moral corruption with Protestantism aside for now. Sent at: 2008 07 24