Trying to Have the Church Without Admitting Protection From Error

In the past, I talked about certain groups who claim that the Church today has fallen into error—usually done to defend themselves when they run afoul of a teaching they dislike. My usual response is that if the Church could be permitted to fall into error, then Matt 16:18 and Matt 28:20 would be promises that Jesus either could not or would not keep. That would mean that He was not God, because God keeps His promises. But Jesus is God and He keeps His promises. Therefore the Church could not have fallen into error.

Counter-argument #1

It occurs to me, however, that some might want to defend their own position at the expense of the Church, arguing that this would be the wrong interpretation of these verses and therefore the reliability (and divinity) of Jesus Christ is protected… basically that the promises of protection means something different than what the Church thinks it means. Therefore when the Church speaks against what *I* think right, it must be in error.

But that argument won't work. When Jesus speaks of the Church, He speaks of a visible Church which teaches in His name and with His authority. If we have a dispute, we are to go to this Church. If we refuse to listen to this Church, we are to be treated as a tax-collector. That means the Church that speaks with His authority must be visible and we must be able to go to it with confidence—which indicates a Church that can be trusted to make the right decisions with His authority. That reasonably assumes a Church which is protected from error.

Counter-argument #2

Another attempt to defend one's position at the expense of the Church might be that the whole Church never goes entirely into error at one time, but no single part of the Church is especially protected all the time. Under such a view, Rome might be the champion of truth at one time, Constantinople at another time and Écône at a third. Therefore Rome could be right in Vatican I, but wrong in Vatican II.

But this can't work either. if any part of the Church can go into error, then we can never know for sure when it wasn't in error. If you think it was possible that Rome could have been in error during Vatican II? Then why not in Vatican I? Why not Trent? Why not Nicaea I for that matter?

The point is, if part of the Church can fall into error without us being able to know which part can be trusted to be protected from error, each part will simply assume it is protected from error during this dispute and the others are not (I mean, come on… does anybody approach a dispute with an attitude of Well, I'm probably the one in the wrong…?).  In such a scenario, the Church is going to wind up in constant division and become countless denominations. Once again, we would have no visible Church to turn to. It is only when we know that, no matter how rotten parts of the Church might become individually, the Church under the headship of the Pope is protected and we can know where the authoritative teaching of the Church—protected from error—can be found.

Counter-argument #3

Now, at this point, some Protestants might proclaim that the existence of the Bible means that we don't need to worry about a Church—we just need to follow the "plain sense" of Scripture.

But that doesn't refute the Catholic concern here—it is actually an example of why the protection from error in a visible Church is necessary. Right at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation you had the Lutherans, Zwinglians, Anabaptists and Anglicans. All of them proclaimed the Bible as their rule of faith and all of them used the Bible to justify their own positions and condemn the other three as being in error on important issues.

Each of these groups also split into multiple factions—each of them thinking themselves right and the others in error. Now I won't get into the arguments of how many denominations there are. "Over 10,000" is a number given by some Catholics, while some Protestants get offended by the use of that number and try to reduce it. The number of denominations is irrelevant. Even if the number of denominations had never gone beyond the four in the Protestant Reformation, that's still three too many—and that's if one of them was actually right to begin with (which is of course disputed).

And that's the point. Unless there is a visible Church with the authority given by Christ to determine where the true interpretation of His teachings lie, an inerrant Bible cannot be a guide—not because it is deficient, but because it could only be interpreted by fallible men and women. That is to say, men and women who can read and interpret it wrongly… and we can never know which ones. (Though it seems it never happens to be the person doing the reading and interpreting—apparently the Pope is the only person who is not infallible in this view).

An inerrant Bible needs a Church protected from error to interpret it from error, and the Church that can be protected from error must be visible and knowable. Otherwise we could never find it and never be able to know which interpretation was correct.

Conclusion

To insist on the point of the need for a Church which is known and protected from error is not some sort of "churciolatry." It is a reasoned understanding of God's promises to Peter and the Apostles… the gates of hell will not prevail against her and Jesus will be with us until the consummation of the world. Since the Popes are the successors of Peter and the promises were made to the Church with Peter at its head, it seems that it is entirely reasonable and faithful to Scripture to recognize the authority of the Catholic Church as this Church.

QED.

Trying to Have the Church Without Admitting Protection From Error

In the past, I talked about certain groups who claim that the Church today has fallen into error—usually done to defend themselves when they run afoul of a teaching they dislike. My usual response is that if the Church could be permitted to fall into error, then Matt 16:18 and Matt 28:20 would be promises that Jesus either could not or would not keep. That would mean that He was not God, because God keeps His promises. But Jesus is God and He keeps His promises. Therefore the Church could not have fallen into error.

Counter-argument #1

It occurs to me, however, that some might want to defend their own position at the expense of the Church, arguing that this would be the wrong interpretation of these verses and therefore the reliability (and divinity) of Jesus Christ is protected… basically that the promises of protection means something different than what the Church thinks it means. Therefore when the Church speaks against what *I* think right, it must be in error.

But that argument won't work. When Jesus speaks of the Church, He speaks of a visible Church which teaches in His name and with His authority. If we have a dispute, we are to go to this Church. If we refuse to listen to this Church, we are to be treated as a tax-collector. That means the Church that speaks with His authority must be visible and we must be able to go to it with confidence—which indicates a Church that can be trusted to make the right decisions with His authority. That reasonably assumes a Church which is protected from error.

Counter-argument #2

Another attempt to defend one's position at the expense of the Church might be that the whole Church never goes entirely into error at one time, but no single part of the Church is especially protected all the time. Under such a view, Rome might be the champion of truth at one time, Constantinople at another time and Écône at a third. Therefore Rome could be right in Vatican I, but wrong in Vatican II.

But this can't work either. if any part of the Church can go into error, then we can never know for sure when it wasn't in error. If you think it was possible that Rome could have been in error during Vatican II? Then why not in Vatican I? Why not Trent? Why not Nicaea I for that matter?

The point is, if part of the Church can fall into error without us being able to know which part can be trusted to be protected from error, each part will simply assume it is protected from error during this dispute and the others are not (I mean, come on… does anybody approach a dispute with an attitude of Well, I'm probably the one in the wrong…?).  In such a scenario, the Church is going to wind up in constant division and become countless denominations. Once again, we would have no visible Church to turn to. It is only when we know that, no matter how rotten parts of the Church might become individually, the Church under the headship of the Pope is protected and we can know where the authoritative teaching of the Church—protected from error—can be found.

Counter-argument #3

Now, at this point, some Protestants might proclaim that the existence of the Bible means that we don't need to worry about a Church—we just need to follow the "plain sense" of Scripture.

But that doesn't refute the Catholic concern here—it is actually an example of why the protection from error in a visible Church is necessary. Right at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation you had the Lutherans, Zwinglians, Anabaptists and Anglicans. All of them proclaimed the Bible as their rule of faith and all of them used the Bible to justify their own positions and condemn the other three as being in error on important issues.

Each of these groups also split into multiple factions—each of them thinking themselves right and the others in error. Now I won't get into the arguments of how many denominations there are. "Over 10,000" is a number given by some Catholics, while some Protestants get offended by the use of that number and try to reduce it. The number of denominations is irrelevant. Even if the number of denominations had never gone beyond the four in the Protestant Reformation, that's still three too many—and that's if one of them was actually right to begin with (which is of course disputed).

And that's the point. Unless there is a visible Church with the authority given by Christ to determine where the true interpretation of His teachings lie, an inerrant Bible cannot be a guide—not because it is deficient, but because it could only be interpreted by fallible men and women. That is to say, men and women who can read and interpret it wrongly… and we can never know which ones. (Though it seems it never happens to be the person doing the reading and interpreting—apparently the Pope is the only person who is not infallible in this view).

An inerrant Bible needs a Church protected from error to interpret it from error, and the Church that can be protected from error must be visible and knowable. Otherwise we could never find it and never be able to know which interpretation was correct.

Conclusion

To insist on the point of the need for a Church which is known and protected from error is not some sort of "churciolatry." It is a reasoned understanding of God's promises to Peter and the Apostles… the gates of hell will not prevail against her and Jesus will be with us until the consummation of the world. Since the Popes are the successors of Peter and the promises were made to the Church with Peter at its head, it seems that it is entirely reasonable and faithful to Scripture to recognize the authority of the Catholic Church as this Church.

QED.

Thoughts on the So-called Plain Sense of Scripture and the No True Scotsman Fallacy

 

^20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, ^21 for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. (2 Peter 1:20-21)

¹⁵ And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, ¹⁶ speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Introduction

In my last article on the subject, I shared some objections as to why Catholics do not accept the concept of Sola Scriptura — that it is a manmade doctrine not to be found in Scripture. This time I want to discuss an assumption which is held by some proponents of Sola Scriptura, which holds there is a “plain sense” of Scripture apparent to all who read it, and therefore a Church which can determine what is a correct interpretation is unnecessary.

This is not a reasonable claim. When one considers that the Bible was written by individuals who wrote thousands of years ago, as a member of a different culture, it is quite likely that to read it as if it was written by a 21^st century author is to read it in a sense which was never intended.

Preliminary Comments

The reader should be aware that just because I reject the concept of a “Plain Sense” of Scripture, it does not mean I reject the authority of Scripture. As a collection of writings written by individuals passing on the Revelation which God gave them and inspired and protected the authors from error in doing so. Scripture “is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” (2 Tim 3:16).

However, it does not follow from this that the Bible was ever intended to stand alone or to be interpreted by itself.

Thus, anyone who interprets my article as denying that the Bible is inspired or authoritative interprets it wrongly.

I don't doubt that some non-Catholics will disagree and perhaps dislike what I write.  Please keep in mind that any comments which I deem offensive (whether personal attacks or anti-Catholic attacks) will not be approved.  Please be civil in any expressed disagreement.

What “Plain Sense” Is.

“Whatever is against the plain sense of the written word, or which gives countenance or encouragement to sin, we may be sure is not that which the Lord has spoken.¹

—Matthew Henry

So what is this Plain Sense?  It is essentially rooted in Literalism, which is defined by Nelson’s New Christian Dictionary as, “Interpretation of biblical texts in straightforward and nonsymbolic language, using the literal meaning of the original words.²  ” So if the Bible says God created the world in seven days, the Bible means exactly that. Any attempt to claim that the Bible never intended to give an “eyewitness” account tends to be accused of trying to “explain away” what the Bible says.

The claim of a “Plain Sense” of Scripture is that the meaning of Scripture is obvious to all who read it, and thus a Church is unnecessary and has no authority to insist on a binding interpretation. Moreover, exegesis and interpretation is not needed since any person who reads the Scriptures in good faith will understand the proper meaning, and only those who do not approach the Scriptures in good faith would insist on a different meaning.

If that kind of thinking sounds problematic, that’s because it stems from a logical error which will claim that “if YOU disagree from ME, it’s because YOU are in error.”

No True Scotsman Fallacy

This is known as the No True Scotsman fallacy, which is used in this case to negate all views of the Bible contrary to one’s own by labeling it as not being authentically Christian. It works like this:

1. All True Christians will accept that a certain Bible Verse means X.
2. Jones doesn’t think this Bible verse means X.
3. Therefore Jones is not a True Christian

Under such a fallacy, any attempts to question the major premise or any counterexamples will be labeled as not being "a true Christian."

To employ a silly example, what if I claim that Jesus stating, “My kingdom does not belong to this world” (John 18:36) means He is an alien and if you do not agree you are not a real Christian and read the Bible out of context. How do you refute that? Such a claim refuses to consider any rebuttals by claiming they must be false because they disagree.

Caveat: This does not mean Scripture is Subjective

Because the above point can be misunderstood, I want to make this clear: The meaning of the Bible is not subjective. What makes it seem subjective is the multiple personal interpretations all claiming to be correct.

There are right and wrong interpretations of the Bible, and the issue is: Who has authority to make a binding interpretation?

My objection to “Plain Sense” and “Personal Interpretation” is it essentially makes any individual who claims it into his own Magisterium, disguising his or her personal interpretation as the “inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

An Example of the Pitfalls with Personal Interpretation

In St. Augustine’s work Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, we see in book 22, how Faustus (a member of the Manichaean heresy) reads the Old Testament and interprets it:

4. These books, moreover, contain shocking calumnies against God himself. We are told that he existed from eternity in darkness, and admired the light when he saw it; that he was so ignorant of the future, that he gave Adam a command, not foreseeing that it would be broken; that his perception was so limited that he could not see Adam when, from the knowledge of his nakedness, he hid himself in a corner of Paradise; that envy made him afraid lest his creature man should taste of the tree of life, and live for ever; that afterwards he was greedy for blood, and fat from all kinds of sacrifices, and jealous if they were offered to any one but himself; that he was enraged sometimes against his enemies, sometimes against his friends; that he destroyed thousands of men for a slight offense, or for nothing; that he threatened to come with a sword and spare nobody, righteous or wicked. The authors of such bold libels against God might very well slander the men of God. You must join with us in laying the blame on the writers if you wish to vindicate the prophets.³

Faustus personally interprets the Creation account and the Torah on the sacrifices in a literal sense, taking what he thinks is the plain sense of Scripture.  Those familiar with Scripture will be able to recognize the Scriptural events he speaks about.   Because of this interpretation, Faustus and the Manichaeans think that the God of the Old Testament cannot be the same as the God of the Prophets and the New Testament.

Now before anyone fires off an angry response here, let me make clear I do not claim that those who believe in “Plain Sense” and “Personal Interpretation” believe in the Manichaeism that Faustus did. Rather I use this example to demonstrate that a person who interprets Scripture for himself with what he or she thinks is the "plain sense" can very easily go wrong, and if such a person makes use of the No True Scotsman fallacy, it can assume everyone else is wrong rather than consider the possibility of personal error.

Guided by the “Spirit”

In response to this, some argue that the proper understanding is done through Guidance by the Holy Spirit.  In this, it would be argued that interpretations not done under the influence of the Spirit were wildly inaccurate.  This defense would claim that the Spirit reaches out to people of good faith and helps them to understand what Scripture means. Therefore it can be said that Faustus was not guided by the Holy Spirit, but those who follow the “Plain Sense” are.

The appeal to the Holy Spirit is another defense mechanism of the “Bible Alone” which is commonly invoked against the example of the false interpretation.  But there is a problem with the assertion.  How do we know who is deceived and who is not?  Or, more chillingly, how does the individual who is certain they are right know they are not deceived?

Faustus, like Arius, Nestorius and others were probably sincere in their belief that Jesus was less than God, and sincere in believing they were inspired while those who disagreed were deceived.  They certainly appealed to the Scriptures sincerely – yet they were in error.  So who determines what is right?

The problem is, this is another example of the No True Scotsman fallacy, and argues that whoever deviates from a chosen interpretation is not guided by the Spirit.  Regardless of beliefs, anyone can use this fallacy and say "This interpretation is not the same as mine.  Therefore it must be false."

Get enough different groups all using the fallacy and contradicting each other and you have a problem. If you have several denominations that hold contradictory views and all of which claim to have the true interpretation of Scripture and all of them appealing to the Bible, to whom are we to approach to determine which view is in contradiction to what Jesus taught His disciples?

If two or more groups say contrary things, they cannot all be right. However, just because one contrary is wrong does not mean the other is right. If one person says “All [A] is [B]” and another says “No [A] is [B]” both can be wrong if it turns out “Some [A] is [B].” Thus we can’t choose who is right simply on the basis of identifying group [B] as wrong.

Self Contradiction in Practice

Thus, the problem with an appeal to a Plain sense of Scripture which therefore requires no Church is that it is a self-contradiction. This claim is in itself a claim to have the personal or denominational authority to make a binding interpretation of Scripture (which they deny to the Catholic Church). In other words, the person appealing to the Plain Sense of Scripture in judging others who disagree with him is creating his own Magisterium — and one based on the argument that if you don’t agree with [X] you are reading the Scriptures wrongly.

The Data of Divisions

The existence of numerous denominations, all calling themselves Protestant, demonstrates this problem. If there is a plain sense of Scripture obvious to all who seek it in good faith, we should expect to see evidence of such a claim in the unity of all groups who claim to rely on the Bible Alone: all pointing to the Bible should hold to the same teaching if the teaching is “plain.”

Yet this does not happen.  If people disagree with a pastor or reverend and their take on Scripture, they are free to just go elsewhere to where someone teaches what they agree with.

Now I won’t go into the “20,000+ denomination” debate which annoys certain Protestants. This seems to be mainly a dispute over what a denomination is. Certain groups consider three different offshoots of Presbyterians as three different denominations. Others consider them one denomination. Without a mutual agreement on what denomination means, such arguments are worthless.

Setting that aside, however, we can say that when one has Lutherans, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Non-Denominational and others, each claiming there is a plain sense of Scripture while appealing to their own belief as being what that plain sense is supposed to be, we can see that this is evidence against a Plain Sense.

A thing cannot both be [A] and [Not-A] at the same time and in the same context.  If two statements about a thing contradict, they can’t both be right, but (if they both share a fundamental misinterpretation they share) both can be wrong.

A Brief Preliminary on "Agreeing on the Important Things"

While this is a topic worthy of a post itself (which I hope to get to later), I will touch briefly on the defense sometimes offered that these different denominations agree on "important things."  The argument is, the differences are less than the agreements, and the agreements are what is discovered from the plain sense. The differences are over “minor” issues.

The reason this is a problem is, denominations do not say these differences are minor issues. Baptists who say Baptism is important and Calvinists who say it is a mere symbol are saying contradictory things about the necessity of Baptism. Denominations disagree on whether abortion or divorce is permissible or not… and a growing number of them are deciding not to contest the issue at all, merely saying nothing to avoid controversy.

So when it comes to the "Agreeing on the Important Things" argument, what we have is a reduction of Christianity to the Lowest Common Denominator, where people who insist on other issues as being important are accused of focusing on trivialities.  Certain denominations (the Anglicans and Presbyterians for example) are divided over the concept of homosexual marriage.  This does not mean that homosexuality is unimportant compared to what they agree on.  Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments. (John 14:15)"  He also said "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. (Matt 7:21)"

So we can say that the issue of obedience to His commandments is not optional, and therefore when two denominations dispute whether or not an issue is "important" either one is denigrating something important or elevating something trivial.

Actually, the "Important things" defense is another example of the No True Scotsman fallacy:

1. There is no contradiction on major beliefs between denominations.
2. Belief [X] is disputed between denominations.
3. Therefore Belief [X] is not a major belief.

Any uncomfortable dispute between denominations is explained away by this argument. The problem is, it waters down the faith to the level of the group which believes the least.

The Question to Be Asked

Thus we have the problem with the claim of Personal interpretation in a nutshell. How can we know who has the correct interpretation when two groups disagree and both claim to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

Hence, Catholics ask: When two or more denominations disagree over the plain sense of Scripture, to what do they appeal to settle who is right?

It cannot be the Bible — because this is what is being disputed.  Two parties with no other authority but the Bible can each accuse the other of interpreting it wrongly and will not accept the other's citation as a refutation of their belief.  Clearly in such a case, having an inerrant Bible alone is not of much use if people cannot agree on the meaning.

That is the problem: if one accepts The Bible Alone, there is nothing to judge between two disputing views to determine which is correct. Thus we have an impasse — if one accepts The Bible Alone and Personal Interpretation.

This is why the Catholics emphasize the fact that the teachings of the Apostles are passed on in both the writings of Sacred Scripture and in Sacred Tradition. We believe Jesus established a Church under the headship of the Apostles and that when one reads the Bible, when one considers Sacred Tradition, one has to view it in context of the faith which is passed consistently from generation to generation. A person who views Scripture apart from how it was interpreted since the times of the Apostles does not read Scripture correctly.

The denial of the claim that Jesus established His Church and protected her from error is to effectively kick out the support for a reasoned belief that the Bible is inerrant, and that “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, ^ so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.⁴”

This is because: If we do not know who has the authority to interpret, how can we know whose teaching, refutation, correction and training for righteousness is correct and whose is in error?

---

¹ Henry, M., & Scott, T. (1997). Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary (Dt 18:15).

² Kurian, G. T. (2001). Nelson's new Christian dictionary : The authoritative resource on the Christian world. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Pubs.

³ Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. IV. St. Augustine: The writings against the Manicheans and against the Donatists. (273).

⁴ Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Board of Trustees, Catholic Church. National Conference of Catholic Bishops, & United States Catholic Conference. Administrative Board. (1996, c1986). The New American Bible : Translated from the original languages with critical use of all the ancient sources and the revised New Testament (2 Ti 3:16). Confraternity of Christian Doctrine.

Thoughts on the So-called Plain Sense of Scripture and the No True Scotsman Fallacy

 

^20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, ^21 for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. (2 Peter 1:20-21)

¹⁵ And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, ¹⁶ speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Introduction

In my last article on the subject, I shared some objections as to why Catholics do not accept the concept of Sola Scriptura — that it is a manmade doctrine not to be found in Scripture. This time I want to discuss an assumption which is held by some proponents of Sola Scriptura, which holds there is a “plain sense” of Scripture apparent to all who read it, and therefore a Church which can determine what is a correct interpretation is unnecessary.

This is not a reasonable claim. When one considers that the Bible was written by individuals who wrote thousands of years ago, as a member of a different culture, it is quite likely that to read it as if it was written by a 21^st century author is to read it in a sense which was never intended.

Preliminary Comments

The reader should be aware that just because I reject the concept of a “Plain Sense” of Scripture, it does not mean I reject the authority of Scripture. As a collection of writings written by individuals passing on the Revelation which God gave them and inspired and protected the authors from error in doing so. Scripture “is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” (2 Tim 3:16).

However, it does not follow from this that the Bible was ever intended to stand alone or to be interpreted by itself.

Thus, anyone who interprets my article as denying that the Bible is inspired or authoritative interprets it wrongly.

I don't doubt that some non-Catholics will disagree and perhaps dislike what I write.  Please keep in mind that any comments which I deem offensive (whether personal attacks or anti-Catholic attacks) will not be approved.  Please be civil in any expressed disagreement.

What “Plain Sense” Is.

“Whatever is against the plain sense of the written word, or which gives countenance or encouragement to sin, we may be sure is not that which the Lord has spoken.¹

—Matthew Henry

So what is this Plain Sense?  It is essentially rooted in Literalism, which is defined by Nelson’s New Christian Dictionary as, “Interpretation of biblical texts in straightforward and nonsymbolic language, using the literal meaning of the original words.²  ” So if the Bible says God created the world in seven days, the Bible means exactly that. Any attempt to claim that the Bible never intended to give an “eyewitness” account tends to be accused of trying to “explain away” what the Bible says.

The claim of a “Plain Sense” of Scripture is that the meaning of Scripture is obvious to all who read it, and thus a Church is unnecessary and has no authority to insist on a binding interpretation. Moreover, exegesis and interpretation is not needed since any person who reads the Scriptures in good faith will understand the proper meaning, and only those who do not approach the Scriptures in good faith would insist on a different meaning.

If that kind of thinking sounds problematic, that’s because it stems from a logical error which will claim that “if YOU disagree from ME, it’s because YOU are in error.”

No True Scotsman Fallacy

This is known as the No True Scotsman fallacy, which is used in this case to negate all views of the Bible contrary to one’s own by labeling it as not being authentically Christian. It works like this:

1. All True Christians will accept that a certain Bible Verse means X.
2. Jones doesn’t think this Bible verse means X.
3. Therefore Jones is not a True Christian

Under such a fallacy, any attempts to question the major premise or any counterexamples will be labeled as not being "a true Christian."

To employ a silly example, what if I claim that Jesus stating, “My kingdom does not belong to this world” (John 18:36) means He is an alien and if you do not agree you are not a real Christian and read the Bible out of context. How do you refute that? Such a claim refuses to consider any rebuttals by claiming they must be false because they disagree.

Caveat: This does not mean Scripture is Subjective

Because the above point can be misunderstood, I want to make this clear: The meaning of the Bible is not subjective. What makes it seem subjective is the multiple personal interpretations all claiming to be correct.

There are right and wrong interpretations of the Bible, and the issue is: Who has authority to make a binding interpretation?

My objection to “Plain Sense” and “Personal Interpretation” is it essentially makes any individual who claims it into his own Magisterium, disguising his or her personal interpretation as the “inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

An Example of the Pitfalls with Personal Interpretation

In St. Augustine’s work Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, we see in book 22, how Faustus (a member of the Manichaean heresy) reads the Old Testament and interprets it:

4. These books, moreover, contain shocking calumnies against God himself. We are told that he existed from eternity in darkness, and admired the light when he saw it; that he was so ignorant of the future, that he gave Adam a command, not foreseeing that it would be broken; that his perception was so limited that he could not see Adam when, from the knowledge of his nakedness, he hid himself in a corner of Paradise; that envy made him afraid lest his creature man should taste of the tree of life, and live for ever; that afterwards he was greedy for blood, and fat from all kinds of sacrifices, and jealous if they were offered to any one but himself; that he was enraged sometimes against his enemies, sometimes against his friends; that he destroyed thousands of men for a slight offense, or for nothing; that he threatened to come with a sword and spare nobody, righteous or wicked. The authors of such bold libels against God might very well slander the men of God. You must join with us in laying the blame on the writers if you wish to vindicate the prophets.³

Faustus personally interprets the Creation account and the Torah on the sacrifices in a literal sense, taking what he thinks is the plain sense of Scripture.  Those familiar with Scripture will be able to recognize the Scriptural events he speaks about.   Because of this interpretation, Faustus and the Manichaeans think that the God of the Old Testament cannot be the same as the God of the Prophets and the New Testament.

Now before anyone fires off an angry response here, let me make clear I do not claim that those who believe in “Plain Sense” and “Personal Interpretation” believe in the Manichaeism that Faustus did. Rather I use this example to demonstrate that a person who interprets Scripture for himself with what he or she thinks is the "plain sense" can very easily go wrong, and if such a person makes use of the No True Scotsman fallacy, it can assume everyone else is wrong rather than consider the possibility of personal error.

Guided by the “Spirit”

In response to this, some argue that the proper understanding is done through Guidance by the Holy Spirit.  In this, it would be argued that interpretations not done under the influence of the Spirit were wildly inaccurate.  This defense would claim that the Spirit reaches out to people of good faith and helps them to understand what Scripture means. Therefore it can be said that Faustus was not guided by the Holy Spirit, but those who follow the “Plain Sense” are.

The appeal to the Holy Spirit is another defense mechanism of the “Bible Alone” which is commonly invoked against the example of the false interpretation.  But there is a problem with the assertion.  How do we know who is deceived and who is not?  Or, more chillingly, how does the individual who is certain they are right know they are not deceived?

Faustus, like Arius, Nestorius and others were probably sincere in their belief that Jesus was less than God, and sincere in believing they were inspired while those who disagreed were deceived.  They certainly appealed to the Scriptures sincerely – yet they were in error.  So who determines what is right?

The problem is, this is another example of the No True Scotsman fallacy, and argues that whoever deviates from a chosen interpretation is not guided by the Spirit.  Regardless of beliefs, anyone can use this fallacy and say "This interpretation is not the same as mine.  Therefore it must be false."

Get enough different groups all using the fallacy and contradicting each other and you have a problem. If you have several denominations that hold contradictory views and all of which claim to have the true interpretation of Scripture and all of them appealing to the Bible, to whom are we to approach to determine which view is in contradiction to what Jesus taught His disciples?

If two or more groups say contrary things, they cannot all be right. However, just because one contrary is wrong does not mean the other is right. If one person says “All [A] is [B]” and another says “No [A] is [B]” both can be wrong if it turns out “Some [A] is [B].” Thus we can’t choose who is right simply on the basis of identifying group [B] as wrong.

Self Contradiction in Practice

Thus, the problem with an appeal to a Plain sense of Scripture which therefore requires no Church is that it is a self-contradiction. This claim is in itself a claim to have the personal or denominational authority to make a binding interpretation of Scripture (which they deny to the Catholic Church). In other words, the person appealing to the Plain Sense of Scripture in judging others who disagree with him is creating his own Magisterium — and one based on the argument that if you don’t agree with [X] you are reading the Scriptures wrongly.

The Data of Divisions

The existence of numerous denominations, all calling themselves Protestant, demonstrates this problem. If there is a plain sense of Scripture obvious to all who seek it in good faith, we should expect to see evidence of such a claim in the unity of all groups who claim to rely on the Bible Alone: all pointing to the Bible should hold to the same teaching if the teaching is “plain.”

Yet this does not happen.  If people disagree with a pastor or reverend and their take on Scripture, they are free to just go elsewhere to where someone teaches what they agree with.

Now I won’t go into the “20,000+ denomination” debate which annoys certain Protestants. This seems to be mainly a dispute over what a denomination is. Certain groups consider three different offshoots of Presbyterians as three different denominations. Others consider them one denomination. Without a mutual agreement on what denomination means, such arguments are worthless.

Setting that aside, however, we can say that when one has Lutherans, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Non-Denominational and others, each claiming there is a plain sense of Scripture while appealing to their own belief as being what that plain sense is supposed to be, we can see that this is evidence against a Plain Sense.

A thing cannot both be [A] and [Not-A] at the same time and in the same context.  If two statements about a thing contradict, they can’t both be right, but (if they both share a fundamental misinterpretation they share) both can be wrong.

A Brief Preliminary on "Agreeing on the Important Things"

While this is a topic worthy of a post itself (which I hope to get to later), I will touch briefly on the defense sometimes offered that these different denominations agree on "important things."  The argument is, the differences are less than the agreements, and the agreements are what is discovered from the plain sense. The differences are over “minor” issues.

The reason this is a problem is, denominations do not say these differences are minor issues. Baptists who say Baptism is important and Calvinists who say it is a mere symbol are saying contradictory things about the necessity of Baptism. Denominations disagree on whether abortion or divorce is permissible or not… and a growing number of them are deciding not to contest the issue at all, merely saying nothing to avoid controversy.

So when it comes to the "Agreeing on the Important Things" argument, what we have is a reduction of Christianity to the Lowest Common Denominator, where people who insist on other issues as being important are accused of focusing on trivialities.  Certain denominations (the Anglicans and Presbyterians for example) are divided over the concept of homosexual marriage.  This does not mean that homosexuality is unimportant compared to what they agree on.  Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments. (John 14:15)"  He also said "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. (Matt 7:21)"

So we can say that the issue of obedience to His commandments is not optional, and therefore when two denominations dispute whether or not an issue is "important" either one is denigrating something important or elevating something trivial.

Actually, the "Important things" defense is another example of the No True Scotsman fallacy:

1. There is no contradiction on major beliefs between denominations.
2. Belief [X] is disputed between denominations.
3. Therefore Belief [X] is not a major belief.

Any uncomfortable dispute between denominations is explained away by this argument. The problem is, it waters down the faith to the level of the group which believes the least.

The Question to Be Asked

Thus we have the problem with the claim of Personal interpretation in a nutshell. How can we know who has the correct interpretation when two groups disagree and both claim to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

Hence, Catholics ask: When two or more denominations disagree over the plain sense of Scripture, to what do they appeal to settle who is right?

It cannot be the Bible — because this is what is being disputed.  Two parties with no other authority but the Bible can each accuse the other of interpreting it wrongly and will not accept the other's citation as a refutation of their belief.  Clearly in such a case, having an inerrant Bible alone is not of much use if people cannot agree on the meaning.

That is the problem: if one accepts The Bible Alone, there is nothing to judge between two disputing views to determine which is correct. Thus we have an impasse — if one accepts The Bible Alone and Personal Interpretation.

This is why the Catholics emphasize the fact that the teachings of the Apostles are passed on in both the writings of Sacred Scripture and in Sacred Tradition. We believe Jesus established a Church under the headship of the Apostles and that when one reads the Bible, when one considers Sacred Tradition, one has to view it in context of the faith which is passed consistently from generation to generation. A person who views Scripture apart from how it was interpreted since the times of the Apostles does not read Scripture correctly.

The denial of the claim that Jesus established His Church and protected her from error is to effectively kick out the support for a reasoned belief that the Bible is inerrant, and that “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, ^ so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.⁴”

This is because: If we do not know who has the authority to interpret, how can we know whose teaching, refutation, correction and training for righteousness is correct and whose is in error?

---

¹ Henry, M., & Scott, T. (1997). Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary (Dt 18:15).

² Kurian, G. T. (2001). Nelson's new Christian dictionary : The authoritative resource on the Christian world. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Pubs.

³ Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. IV. St. Augustine: The writings against the Manicheans and against the Donatists. (273).

⁴ Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Board of Trustees, Catholic Church. National Conference of Catholic Bishops, & United States Catholic Conference. Administrative Board. (1996, c1986). The New American Bible : Translated from the original languages with critical use of all the ancient sources and the revised New Testament (2 Ti 3:16). Confraternity of Christian Doctrine.

Thoughts on Primacy and Infallibility (Article IVa): Preliminaries on What Divides Catholics and Protestants

(Those who read the earlier version of Article IIIb may have expected this to be article IIIc. I decided to make it IVa simply because it is a different topic from the topic of infallibility in article IIIa and IIIb).

Preliminary Notes

Of course a topic like this will invoke strong feelings.  Whether Catholic or Protestant, those who practice their faith out of devotion (as opposed to a "meh, whatever" attitude of indifference) belong because they believe their teachings to be true.  Of course, Catholicism and Protestantism cannot both be true.

If Protestantism is true, then it means that Catholicism added to the teachings of the Christian faith.  However, if Catholicism is true, then it means that Protestantism subtracted from the teachings of the Christian faith.

I would ask the reader to remember I am not writing this as an "in your face" attack on non-Catholic Christians.  Rather, I seek to demonstrate why Catholics do not recognize the concept of sola scriptura as part of the teaching of Christ.

Introduction

Of course the entire subject of the disputes between Catholics and Protestants are too large to deal with in one article — or even a series of articles.  The focus of this article is to lay down some pitfalls to avoid.  We need to avoid the use of logical fallacies and we need to realize what is under dispute.  I have certainly seen internet debates where Catholic and Protestant spoke past each other because they did not realize they used the same terms in different ways leading to each side accusing the other of being obstinate.

Argument from Ignorance is a Fallacy

One thing essential to remember is that the argument that "[X] is not mentioned in the Bible,  Therefore it was added later," is an argument from ignorance.  The argument from ignorance basically makes an assumption that because a thing was not said it means it is not true.  Alternately, some have used it to say that since there is no argument against the view it must be true.

Neither view is correct.  No logical conclusion can be drawn from nothing (no knowledge).  Rather we need to see what sort of evidence exists for a belief.  Now in the court of law, the defendant is assumed innocent until proven guilty.  This means that the burden of proof is on one side, while the other side merely has to show why the prosecution cannot prove his case.

However, in discussions where the truth is being sought, both sides need to present their justifications, and we cannot accept the assumption that because one side has failed to present their case that the other side must automatically be true.

The fact that Scripture does not say a thing neither proves a thing nor disproves a thing.  One must recognize that there can be other reasons for not speaking on a topic.  For example, Paul speaking on circumcision in his epistles may find the topic of primacy irrelevant to the point he wishes to make.

This is important to remember because often debates over religious beliefs boil down to claiming "your side isn't mentioned in [X].  Therefore it is false."  Because of this, we must recognize that accepting or denying a belief cannot be based on this sort of reasoning.

Assumptions and Sola Scriptura

This leads us into the next issue of concern, and that is the issue of assumptions and interpretations.  What one holds to be true may in fact be true whether or not the individual can explain himself in a logical way or not.  However, if one wants to convince another, there needs to be some sort of acceptance of the premise between two parties.  If both parties do not accept something, then it is this issue which needs to be established before continuing.  This is why Christians of different denominations do not begin their disputes with the question of whether God exists.  Since both believe this to be true, they do not need to start here.  On the other hand, a Christian and an atheist debating would need to be starting somewhere closer to the question of "does God exist?"  (The precise spot would depend on what sort of beliefs the atheist had about the idea of what we can know, whether we can know truth and so on).

Failure to start at the point of difference will result in nothing more than a waste of time, as both sides talk past each other.

In terms of Church authority and Sola Scriptura, the difference is not over whether Catholics believe the Bible to be inspired.  We do believe this to be true.  The key area of difference is over the authority to interpret Scripture.  If a Protestant says "Catholicism cannot be true, for the Catholic Church teaches [X] and the Bible clearly forbids [X]," the Catholic will rightly want to know on what authority the Protestant can interpret Scripture in a binding fashion on this subject.  Likewise, the Protestant who hears that the Church has defined something infallibly will generally reject it because they do not believe the Pope has this authority.

Thus, the true issue between Catholic and Protestant is Who has the authority to interpret what is and is not authentically Christian.

Anyone who has been paying attention to this series so far will realize I have done my best to demonstrate the basis on which the Catholic believes in the teaching authority of the Church, though any failure is due to my own lack of ability and not that of the Church.  The non-Catholic may not believe in the Catholic authority to interpret Scripture in a binding manner, but they cannot deny we do accept the authority of Scripture in holding this view.

Conclusion

Now, we need to look at Sola Scriptura and the basis for holding it, and why a Catholic does not accept the premise.  In doing so, I hope to clear up some misconceptions on what Catholics do believe.  Thus I will look at the claims of sola scriptura and do my best to find a representative view of what it means in light of the differences between some denominations on the subject.

Thoughts on Primacy and Infallibility (Article IVa): Preliminaries on What Divides Catholics and Protestants

(Those who read the earlier version of Article IIIb may have expected this to be article IIIc. I decided to make it IVa simply because it is a different topic from the topic of infallibility in article IIIa and IIIb).

Preliminary Notes

Of course a topic like this will invoke strong feelings.  Whether Catholic or Protestant, those who practice their faith out of devotion (as opposed to a "meh, whatever" attitude of indifference) belong because they believe their teachings to be true.  Of course, Catholicism and Protestantism cannot both be true.

If Protestantism is true, then it means that Catholicism added to the teachings of the Christian faith.  However, if Catholicism is true, then it means that Protestantism subtracted from the teachings of the Christian faith.

I would ask the reader to remember I am not writing this as an "in your face" attack on non-Catholic Christians.  Rather, I seek to demonstrate why Catholics do not recognize the concept of sola scriptura as part of the teaching of Christ.

Introduction

Of course the entire subject of the disputes between Catholics and Protestants are too large to deal with in one article — or even a series of articles.  The focus of this article is to lay down some pitfalls to avoid.  We need to avoid the use of logical fallacies and we need to realize what is under dispute.  I have certainly seen internet debates where Catholic and Protestant spoke past each other because they did not realize they used the same terms in different ways leading to each side accusing the other of being obstinate.

Argument from Ignorance is a Fallacy

One thing essential to remember is that the argument that "[X] is not mentioned in the Bible,  Therefore it was added later," is an argument from ignorance.  The argument from ignorance basically makes an assumption that because a thing was not said it means it is not true.  Alternately, some have used it to say that since there is no argument against the view it must be true.

Neither view is correct.  No logical conclusion can be drawn from nothing (no knowledge).  Rather we need to see what sort of evidence exists for a belief.  Now in the court of law, the defendant is assumed innocent until proven guilty.  This means that the burden of proof is on one side, while the other side merely has to show why the prosecution cannot prove his case.

However, in discussions where the truth is being sought, both sides need to present their justifications, and we cannot accept the assumption that because one side has failed to present their case that the other side must automatically be true.

The fact that Scripture does not say a thing neither proves a thing nor disproves a thing.  One must recognize that there can be other reasons for not speaking on a topic.  For example, Paul speaking on circumcision in his epistles may find the topic of primacy irrelevant to the point he wishes to make.

This is important to remember because often debates over religious beliefs boil down to claiming "your side isn't mentioned in [X].  Therefore it is false."  Because of this, we must recognize that accepting or denying a belief cannot be based on this sort of reasoning.

Assumptions and Sola Scriptura

This leads us into the next issue of concern, and that is the issue of assumptions and interpretations.  What one holds to be true may in fact be true whether or not the individual can explain himself in a logical way or not.  However, if one wants to convince another, there needs to be some sort of acceptance of the premise between two parties.  If both parties do not accept something, then it is this issue which needs to be established before continuing.  This is why Christians of different denominations do not begin their disputes with the question of whether God exists.  Since both believe this to be true, they do not need to start here.  On the other hand, a Christian and an atheist debating would need to be starting somewhere closer to the question of "does God exist?"  (The precise spot would depend on what sort of beliefs the atheist had about the idea of what we can know, whether we can know truth and so on).

Failure to start at the point of difference will result in nothing more than a waste of time, as both sides talk past each other.

In terms of Church authority and Sola Scriptura, the difference is not over whether Catholics believe the Bible to be inspired.  We do believe this to be true.  The key area of difference is over the authority to interpret Scripture.  If a Protestant says "Catholicism cannot be true, for the Catholic Church teaches [X] and the Bible clearly forbids [X]," the Catholic will rightly want to know on what authority the Protestant can interpret Scripture in a binding fashion on this subject.  Likewise, the Protestant who hears that the Church has defined something infallibly will generally reject it because they do not believe the Pope has this authority.

Thus, the true issue between Catholic and Protestant is Who has the authority to interpret what is and is not authentically Christian.

Anyone who has been paying attention to this series so far will realize I have done my best to demonstrate the basis on which the Catholic believes in the teaching authority of the Church, though any failure is due to my own lack of ability and not that of the Church.  The non-Catholic may not believe in the Catholic authority to interpret Scripture in a binding manner, but they cannot deny we do accept the authority of Scripture in holding this view.

Conclusion

Now, we need to look at Sola Scriptura and the basis for holding it, and why a Catholic does not accept the premise.  In doing so, I hope to clear up some misconceptions on what Catholics do believe.  Thus I will look at the claims of sola scriptura and do my best to find a representative view of what it means in light of the differences between some denominations on the subject.

Do Not Spit in Our Face and Tell Us It Is Raining: More Thoughts On Dissent

"Don't spit in my face and tell me it's raining"

—Old Yiddish Saying.

 

Preliminary Disclaimer

This article is not a Triumphalist "Love it or leave it" article.  I do not want people to leave the Church.  Rather I wish for them to consider the serious nature of rejecting Church authority.

A good article to consider can be found HERE.

An excellent book to read on the topic of conscience can be found HERE.

Also please keep in mind I am not talking about disagreeing with some wingnut priest or nun who teaches contrary to the Church or lives contrary to her teachings.  Nor am I talking about whether some priest or nun agrees or disagrees with Glen Beck or some other political commentator one likes or dislikes.  I am speaking here of dissent from the formal teachings of the Church on issues of faith and morals.

Introduction: Catholicism and Disagreement.  How it Differs From Non-Catholic Disagreement

One way that Catholicism differs from other Christian denominations is over the issue of dissent.  For example, the Protestant who dislikes how his denomination interprets Scripture can just go and begin attending services at another denomination which interprets Scripture as he thinks is right.  He'll still be considered a Protestant in good standing.  The Baptist and the Methodist may disagree on issues, but one does not think the other is any less a Protestant for being in a different denomination.

However, the Catholic who either begins to attend services at another denomination either breaks from the Church (formal schism) or merely lives in a way contrary to the Church teaching cannot claim that his or her actions are in keeping with the teachings of the Church.

The reason for this difference is that Catholics believe that there is a living Magisterium which continues to pass on the teachings of the Apostles, passing on the truth and rejecting error.  For Catholics, the faith is not a matter of personal interpretation, but involves objective truth, which cannot be in contradiction to other truths.  Since we believe that Christ is God, it follows that we must obey Him to be faithful to His call (John 15:10).

The Wedge of Dissent

Because dissenters cannot claim their actions are in keeping with the teaching of the Church, dissenting Catholics seek to place a wedge between Christ and the Catholic Church, saying that the Church is not doing what God wills, while the dissenter is doing what God wills.

Such a claim needs to provide proofs to justify how one can say the Church got it wrong for so long, but the dissenter figured it out on his own.

Now, it is one thing for a non-Catholic to believe the Church does not do what God wills.  I believe such a non-Catholic errs of course but, since he or she does not believe that the Catholic Church is established by Christ, the non-Catholic who thinks this way is at least practicing what they preach.

It is far less justifiable for the Catholic to believe in this way.  If we believe that God is the supreme authority in the universe whom we are obligated to obey, and that Jesus Christ, His Son, is one person of the Trinity, it follows that what Jesus teaches, we are obligated to obey.  Since we, as Catholics, believe that Jesus Christ established a Church and established that not listening to the Church is the same as not listening to Him (cf. Matthew 18:17, Luke 10:16), the person who thinks they may ignore the teachings of the Church they dislike must asses their behavior as they seem to fall in one of these categories:

1. They do not understand what the Church actually teaches and rebel against a Straw Man
2. They do not consider the ramifications of their behavior
3. They do not believe what the Church teaches about her relation to Christ.

The rest of this article is intended to look at these motivations, and what logically follows from them in terms of doing what is right.

The Dissenter Who Acts out of Ignorance

There are certainly those who rebel against what they wrongly believe the Church teaches.  There are those who left the Church because they believe we "worship" Mary.  There are those who denounce the Church as cruel because they do not see why the Church teaches the way they do.

The problem is, such behavior is built on logical fallacy.  Those who impute to the Catholic Church something she does not believe are rejecting authority over the Straw Man fallacy: If the Church does not hold what the dissenter claims, the dissenter has no logical grounds in his attack.

As for those who do not understand what the Church teaching, they are under the Argument from Silence fallacy.  Just because this sort of dissenter does not understand why the Church teaches as it does, it does not mean the Church does not have a valid reason.  Certainly the person who would dissent from the Church is obligated to look into what the Church does teach, and not merely what the dissenter thinks the Church teaches.

All too often the Church has been accused of teaching it does not teach, simply because secular society uses a similar term and uses it in a different context.  Thus, when the Church speaks of Social Justice, she is often accused of being liberal.  When the Church speaks of moral issues, she is often accused of simply being "Right Wing."

"Liberal" and "Conservative" are what we call Contrary terms.  The Church cannot be both, but it can be "none of the above"  Indeed, if both political factions accuse it of being in the other faction, the odds are good it belongs to neither.

As a result some dissenters reject the Church teaching, not for what she teaches, but for what the dissenter wrongly believes the Church teaches.

In such a case, the dissenter will face God and be judged on what he or she could have known if the dissenter had bothered to check.  The person who would find it impossible to learn (called invincible ignorance) won't be judged for what they could not know.

The dissenter who could have learned but refused to do so will not get off so lightly. If the Catholic Church is the Church which Jesus Christ established (and we Catholics do believe this), then it follows the Catholic has no excuse for his or her lack of knowledge of what is right to do.

Keeping this in mind, we have our first principle:

Before setting oneself in opposition to Church teaching, one should check and see what the Church actually teaches on the subject.  "I do not know," is NOT a valid principle for dissent.

Those who do not consider the ramifications of their Dissent

—Sometimes a way seems right to a man, but the end of it leads to death! (Proverbs 16:25)

Many people who dissent do not do so because they think the Catholic teaching untrue.  Rather they never go beyond thinking the Catholic teaching is difficult.  The assumption is that since "God is love" (1 John 4:8), He doesn't want us to suffer difficulties, and therefore anything which inconveniences us must be against what God wills."

Think about the martyrs who died for the faith rather than to deny God.  Then think of this dissenting view again.  Since death is indeed suffering and is difficult, and we are indeed called to suffer death rather than to deny Him, we can see a huge problem with the assumption.  Either the martyrs were grossly insensitive to those they left behind or else the "God doesn't want me to suffer difficulties" concept is a misstating of what God wants for us.

—There are two ways, one of life and one of death, but a great difference between the two ways. The way of life, then, is this: First, you shall love God who made you; second, love your neighbor as yourself, and do not do to another what you would not want done to you. (Didache Chapter 1)

We need to realize that God wants us to be holy as He is holy (cf. Leviticus 19:2), and in His love for us, He wants for us to be with Him eternally.  However, some things which may seem good to us set us apart from God and will separate us from Him eternally if we choose to do them.  To love God means to keep his commandments (John 14:15), and as Catholics we believe that God established a Church in order to preach His word to the nations.

As human beings affected by sin, we need to recognize that we are prone to self deception, thinking of what we may want as the ultimate good.  To avoid this, we need to seek humility, to recognize that what may seem good to us personally may not be what God wants for us.

As Catholics we are called to accept her teachings as being bound in Heaven (Matthew 16:19), and that when we run afoul of the teachings of the Church, it is not the Church being mean, but us being self-deceived.

From this we have a second principle:

Before accusing the Church of being in the wrong, we must find out whether we are confusing our personal desires with God's will.

On Those Who Do Not Believe What the Church Teaches About Herself

Personally I find this position extremely illogical, even hypocritical.  The Catholic Church believes she is the Church established by Christ, and that she does have the authority to bind and loose.  If one does not believe this, then the ramifications are severe.  It would mean that the Church teaches falsely.  We can indeed use CS. Lewis' famous aut deus aut homo malus argument in this case [Please do not think I am comparing the Church with God here.  I am merely pointing out that accepting or rejecting her claims have logical consequences]:

Either the Church is what she teaches about herself, or she is a horrible fraud to be repudiated.

While I disagree with anti-Catholics, I recognize they are at least logically consistent.  Because they reject what she claims about herself, they believe they must oppose her.  The dissenting Catholic who remains within while believing she teaches falsely seeks the benefits of the Church while denying what the Church holds.

Such behavior would be hypocrisy.  To put it in a syllogism, we have:

1. [Faithful Catholics] Accept [All Church Teaching]  (All [A] is [B])
2. No [Dissenters] accept [All Church Teaching] (No [C] is [B])
3. Therefore No [Dissenters] are [Faithful Catholics] (Therefore No [C] is [A])

To get out of this dilemma, the dissenter has to deny the major premise and claim it is they who are faithful to Christ while the Church is "out of touch" or "bureaucratic."

Let it be noted, by the way, that these are merely examples of name calling, not refutations.

There are two problems: One is of logic, the other is of practicing what they preach.

The logical issue is that if one wishes to claim themselves correct and the magisterium in error (remember we are not speaking of what Fr. Harry Tik says in a sermon or what Sr. Mary Flowerchild says in some classroom, but of what the Church officially professes to believe), we need to ask, "On what basis?"

Unfortunately the dissenter tends to argue in a circle begging the question.

• Q: Why do you oppose the Church teaching on contraception? [Or abortion, or divorce, or social justice… ad infinitum].
• A: Because the Church is bureaucratic and out of touch!
• Q: Why do you believe the Church is bureaucratic and out of touch?
• A: Because if they were following Jesus they would have a different teaching on contraception!

See the problem here?  The dissenter believes the Church stand on an issue shows the Church is bureaucratic and out of touch.  It believes the Church is bureaucratic and out of touch because of her stand on that issue.  The problem is such a claim does not show the Church is wrong for making the stand that it does.  Rather it merely demonstrates the dissenter dislikes the teaching, and this is not a valid reason for denying the Church teaching.

There is also a problem with consistency.  If you believe the Church teaches falsely, then why the hell are you still in this Church?

I don't ask this facetiously.  If the Church teaches wrongly, and if we are to follow the truth and live according to it, why remain in a body which one thinks teaches wrongly?  For example, I am not a member of the Catholic Church because I like the architecture or the liturgy.  I'm not a person looking for a father figure and domination in my life.  No, there is one reason I remain within the Catholic Church despite the problems she has:

I believe what she teaches is true, and is taught with the authority of Christ who protects her from error.

If I believed she did not teach truly, I would be searching for someplace where I thought they did teach truly.  If I believed she did not have the authority to teach, I would be looking for the Church that did. I do not believe that Christ left us in spiritual anarchy where there are conflicting interpretations of Scripture.

This brings us to our third principle:

If one rejects the Catholic teaching that her formal teachings on faith and morals are without error, to remain within her is inconsistent, and possibly hypocritical.

Practice What You Preach

Since Jesus Christ has declared He is the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6), and since we believe we are called to know, love and serve God (See CCC#1721), it follows that we must not live in error.  Rather, once we know something is true, we must live in accord with the Truth, and if we know something is false, we must cease to live by it.

Questions for the Would Be Dissenter

Because of this obligation to know, love and serve God, it means we must always seek to do His will.  Thus when it comes to dissent, the one who is at odds with the Church must ask some questions:

1) Do I understand the teaching I reject? 

Because we must recognize the possibility of our own errors, we need to ask ourselves if we truly understand the Church teaching which offends.  If one does not, one's dissent is based on ignorance and is not justified.

2) Do I understand the ramifications of rejecting a Church teaching?

To reject a Church teaching means one is either knowingly doing wrong, or else is believing the Church is wrong.  The first case is clearly sin.  The second requires the dissenter to answer the question of what use of reason or authority he or she uses to justify rejection of the Church teaching, and how the dissenter knows he or she does not err.

3) Do I consider the Church teaching to be wrong?  Or merely Difficult?

Jesus taught that His yoke is easy and His burden Light (Matthew 11:30), but it does remain a yoke.  We are not free to do whatever we wish:  We cannot use our freedom for the opportunity of the flesh (Galatians 5:13).  Sometimes we must choose a hard path, such as Martyrdom, rather than deny our faith (cf. 2 Tim 2:12).  Christ has told us "whoever does not take up his cross ^and follow after me is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:38).

Just because a teaching may be inconvenient does not give us the right to disobey it.  If it is from God, we must obey it.  This brings us to our fourth question.

4) Do I believe the Church has Christ as her authority to teach?

As Catholics, it is an article of faith that Jesus intended to establish a visible Church which has the authority to teach in His name and to bind and to loose.  If one accepts this, one who runs afoul of her teachings must remember it is far more likely that the individual errs than the Church.

However, if one rejects this (and if the Church is wrong in her belief that Christ protects her from error, this is a pretty big delusion on the part of the Church), to remain within the Church is to demonstrate an indifference to doing what is right. 

Conclusion: Don't Spit In Our Face and Tell Us It's Raining

Essentially the Dissenter is a person who refuses to obey and considers themselves in the right for doing so.  However, reason tells us that if such a person professes to believe what the Church teaches then he or she errs when breaking with what the Church teaches in faith and morals, and is obligated to study the teaching he or she dislikes to understand why it is taught.

However, if the dissenter rejects the belief that God protects His Church from error, and her teaching is merely an opinion then the dissenter is demonstrating an inconsistency in remaining in the Church that makes such a claim.

In both cases, the dissenter displays error:

1. In the first case, for claiming to believe the Church is protected from error while rejecting her teachings.
2. In the second case for remaining within a Church they believe claim teaches falsely when she claims to be teaching truthfully.

This is why I have titled the article as I have.  The dissenter who justifies dissent from the Church while remaining within her is not living according to their beliefs.  They spit in the face of the Church through disobedience then claim that it is raining in that they claim they are doing God's will in doing so.

The dissenter should consider the ground they are on:

^{24 }“Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.

^25 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock.

^26 And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand.

^27 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.” (Matthew 7:24-27)

On what basis are you certain your house is built on rock and not sand.

Do Not Spit in Our Face and Tell Us It Is Raining: More Thoughts On Dissent

"Don't spit in my face and tell me it's raining"

—Old Yiddish Saying.

 

Preliminary Disclaimer

This article is not a Triumphalist "Love it or leave it" article.  I do not want people to leave the Church.  Rather I wish for them to consider the serious nature of rejecting Church authority.

A good article to consider can be found HERE.

An excellent book to read on the topic of conscience can be found HERE.

Also please keep in mind I am not talking about disagreeing with some wingnut priest or nun who teaches contrary to the Church or lives contrary to her teachings.  Nor am I talking about whether some priest or nun agrees or disagrees with Glen Beck or some other political commentator one likes or dislikes.  I am speaking here of dissent from the formal teachings of the Church on issues of faith and morals.

Introduction: Catholicism and Disagreement.  How it Differs From Non-Catholic Disagreement

One way that Catholicism differs from other Christian denominations is over the issue of dissent.  For example, the Protestant who dislikes how his denomination interprets Scripture can just go and begin attending services at another denomination which interprets Scripture as he thinks is right.  He'll still be considered a Protestant in good standing.  The Baptist and the Methodist may disagree on issues, but one does not think the other is any less a Protestant for being in a different denomination.

However, the Catholic who either begins to attend services at another denomination either breaks from the Church (formal schism) or merely lives in a way contrary to the Church teaching cannot claim that his or her actions are in keeping with the teachings of the Church.

The reason for this difference is that Catholics believe that there is a living Magisterium which continues to pass on the teachings of the Apostles, passing on the truth and rejecting error.  For Catholics, the faith is not a matter of personal interpretation, but involves objective truth, which cannot be in contradiction to other truths.  Since we believe that Christ is God, it follows that we must obey Him to be faithful to His call (John 15:10).

The Wedge of Dissent

Because dissenters cannot claim their actions are in keeping with the teaching of the Church, dissenting Catholics seek to place a wedge between Christ and the Catholic Church, saying that the Church is not doing what God wills, while the dissenter is doing what God wills.

Such a claim needs to provide proofs to justify how one can say the Church got it wrong for so long, but the dissenter figured it out on his own.

Now, it is one thing for a non-Catholic to believe the Church does not do what God wills.  I believe such a non-Catholic errs of course but, since he or she does not believe that the Catholic Church is established by Christ, the non-Catholic who thinks this way is at least practicing what they preach.

It is far less justifiable for the Catholic to believe in this way.  If we believe that God is the supreme authority in the universe whom we are obligated to obey, and that Jesus Christ, His Son, is one person of the Trinity, it follows that what Jesus teaches, we are obligated to obey.  Since we, as Catholics, believe that Jesus Christ established a Church and established that not listening to the Church is the same as not listening to Him (cf. Matthew 18:17, Luke 10:16), the person who thinks they may ignore the teachings of the Church they dislike must asses their behavior as they seem to fall in one of these categories:

1. They do not understand what the Church actually teaches and rebel against a Straw Man
2. They do not consider the ramifications of their behavior
3. They do not believe what the Church teaches about her relation to Christ.

The rest of this article is intended to look at these motivations, and what logically follows from them in terms of doing what is right.

The Dissenter Who Acts out of Ignorance

There are certainly those who rebel against what they wrongly believe the Church teaches.  There are those who left the Church because they believe we "worship" Mary.  There are those who denounce the Church as cruel because they do not see why the Church teaches the way they do.

The problem is, such behavior is built on logical fallacy.  Those who impute to the Catholic Church something she does not believe are rejecting authority over the Straw Man fallacy: If the Church does not hold what the dissenter claims, the dissenter has no logical grounds in his attack.

As for those who do not understand what the Church teaching, they are under the Argument from Silence fallacy.  Just because this sort of dissenter does not understand why the Church teaches as it does, it does not mean the Church does not have a valid reason.  Certainly the person who would dissent from the Church is obligated to look into what the Church does teach, and not merely what the dissenter thinks the Church teaches.

All too often the Church has been accused of teaching it does not teach, simply because secular society uses a similar term and uses it in a different context.  Thus, when the Church speaks of Social Justice, she is often accused of being liberal.  When the Church speaks of moral issues, she is often accused of simply being "Right Wing."

"Liberal" and "Conservative" are what we call Contrary terms.  The Church cannot be both, but it can be "none of the above"  Indeed, if both political factions accuse it of being in the other faction, the odds are good it belongs to neither.

As a result some dissenters reject the Church teaching, not for what she teaches, but for what the dissenter wrongly believes the Church teaches.

In such a case, the dissenter will face God and be judged on what he or she could have known if the dissenter had bothered to check.  The person who would find it impossible to learn (called invincible ignorance) won't be judged for what they could not know.

The dissenter who could have learned but refused to do so will not get off so lightly. If the Catholic Church is the Church which Jesus Christ established (and we Catholics do believe this), then it follows the Catholic has no excuse for his or her lack of knowledge of what is right to do.

Keeping this in mind, we have our first principle:

Before setting oneself in opposition to Church teaching, one should check and see what the Church actually teaches on the subject.  "I do not know," is NOT a valid principle for dissent.

Those who do not consider the ramifications of their Dissent

—Sometimes a way seems right to a man, but the end of it leads to death! (Proverbs 16:25)

Many people who dissent do not do so because they think the Catholic teaching untrue.  Rather they never go beyond thinking the Catholic teaching is difficult.  The assumption is that since "God is love" (1 John 4:8), He doesn't want us to suffer difficulties, and therefore anything which inconveniences us must be against what God wills."

Think about the martyrs who died for the faith rather than to deny God.  Then think of this dissenting view again.  Since death is indeed suffering and is difficult, and we are indeed called to suffer death rather than to deny Him, we can see a huge problem with the assumption.  Either the martyrs were grossly insensitive to those they left behind or else the "God doesn't want me to suffer difficulties" concept is a misstating of what God wants for us.

—There are two ways, one of life and one of death, but a great difference between the two ways. The way of life, then, is this: First, you shall love God who made you; second, love your neighbor as yourself, and do not do to another what you would not want done to you. (Didache Chapter 1)

We need to realize that God wants us to be holy as He is holy (cf. Leviticus 19:2), and in His love for us, He wants for us to be with Him eternally.  However, some things which may seem good to us set us apart from God and will separate us from Him eternally if we choose to do them.  To love God means to keep his commandments (John 14:15), and as Catholics we believe that God established a Church in order to preach His word to the nations.

As human beings affected by sin, we need to recognize that we are prone to self deception, thinking of what we may want as the ultimate good.  To avoid this, we need to seek humility, to recognize that what may seem good to us personally may not be what God wants for us.

As Catholics we are called to accept her teachings as being bound in Heaven (Matthew 16:19), and that when we run afoul of the teachings of the Church, it is not the Church being mean, but us being self-deceived.

From this we have a second principle:

Before accusing the Church of being in the wrong, we must find out whether we are confusing our personal desires with God's will.

On Those Who Do Not Believe What the Church Teaches About Herself

Personally I find this position extremely illogical, even hypocritical.  The Catholic Church believes she is the Church established by Christ, and that she does have the authority to bind and loose.  If one does not believe this, then the ramifications are severe.  It would mean that the Church teaches falsely.  We can indeed use CS. Lewis' famous aut deus aut homo malus argument in this case [Please do not think I am comparing the Church with God here.  I am merely pointing out that accepting or rejecting her claims have logical consequences]:

Either the Church is what she teaches about herself, or she is a horrible fraud to be repudiated.

While I disagree with anti-Catholics, I recognize they are at least logically consistent.  Because they reject what she claims about herself, they believe they must oppose her.  The dissenting Catholic who remains within while believing she teaches falsely seeks the benefits of the Church while denying what the Church holds.

Such behavior would be hypocrisy.  To put it in a syllogism, we have:

1. [Faithful Catholics] Accept [All Church Teaching]  (All [A] is [B])
2. No [Dissenters] accept [All Church Teaching] (No [C] is [B])
3. Therefore No [Dissenters] are [Faithful Catholics] (Therefore No [C] is [A])

To get out of this dilemma, the dissenter has to deny the major premise and claim it is they who are faithful to Christ while the Church is "out of touch" or "bureaucratic."

Let it be noted, by the way, that these are merely examples of name calling, not refutations.

There are two problems: One is of logic, the other is of practicing what they preach.

The logical issue is that if one wishes to claim themselves correct and the magisterium in error (remember we are not speaking of what Fr. Harry Tik says in a sermon or what Sr. Mary Flowerchild says in some classroom, but of what the Church officially professes to believe), we need to ask, "On what basis?"

Unfortunately the dissenter tends to argue in a circle begging the question.

• Q: Why do you oppose the Church teaching on contraception? [Or abortion, or divorce, or social justice… ad infinitum].
• A: Because the Church is bureaucratic and out of touch!
• Q: Why do you believe the Church is bureaucratic and out of touch?
• A: Because if they were following Jesus they would have a different teaching on contraception!

See the problem here?  The dissenter believes the Church stand on an issue shows the Church is bureaucratic and out of touch.  It believes the Church is bureaucratic and out of touch because of her stand on that issue.  The problem is such a claim does not show the Church is wrong for making the stand that it does.  Rather it merely demonstrates the dissenter dislikes the teaching, and this is not a valid reason for denying the Church teaching.

There is also a problem with consistency.  If you believe the Church teaches falsely, then why the hell are you still in this Church?

I don't ask this facetiously.  If the Church teaches wrongly, and if we are to follow the truth and live according to it, why remain in a body which one thinks teaches wrongly?  For example, I am not a member of the Catholic Church because I like the architecture or the liturgy.  I'm not a person looking for a father figure and domination in my life.  No, there is one reason I remain within the Catholic Church despite the problems she has:

I believe what she teaches is true, and is taught with the authority of Christ who protects her from error.

If I believed she did not teach truly, I would be searching for someplace where I thought they did teach truly.  If I believed she did not have the authority to teach, I would be looking for the Church that did. I do not believe that Christ left us in spiritual anarchy where there are conflicting interpretations of Scripture.

This brings us to our third principle:

If one rejects the Catholic teaching that her formal teachings on faith and morals are without error, to remain within her is inconsistent, and possibly hypocritical.

Practice What You Preach

Since Jesus Christ has declared He is the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6), and since we believe we are called to know, love and serve God (See CCC#1721), it follows that we must not live in error.  Rather, once we know something is true, we must live in accord with the Truth, and if we know something is false, we must cease to live by it.

Questions for the Would Be Dissenter

Because of this obligation to know, love and serve God, it means we must always seek to do His will.  Thus when it comes to dissent, the one who is at odds with the Church must ask some questions:

1) Do I understand the teaching I reject? 

Because we must recognize the possibility of our own errors, we need to ask ourselves if we truly understand the Church teaching which offends.  If one does not, one's dissent is based on ignorance and is not justified.

2) Do I understand the ramifications of rejecting a Church teaching?

To reject a Church teaching means one is either knowingly doing wrong, or else is believing the Church is wrong.  The first case is clearly sin.  The second requires the dissenter to answer the question of what use of reason or authority he or she uses to justify rejection of the Church teaching, and how the dissenter knows he or she does not err.

3) Do I consider the Church teaching to be wrong?  Or merely Difficult?

Jesus taught that His yoke is easy and His burden Light (Matthew 11:30), but it does remain a yoke.  We are not free to do whatever we wish:  We cannot use our freedom for the opportunity of the flesh (Galatians 5:13).  Sometimes we must choose a hard path, such as Martyrdom, rather than deny our faith (cf. 2 Tim 2:12).  Christ has told us "whoever does not take up his cross ^and follow after me is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:38).

Just because a teaching may be inconvenient does not give us the right to disobey it.  If it is from God, we must obey it.  This brings us to our fourth question.

4) Do I believe the Church has Christ as her authority to teach?

As Catholics, it is an article of faith that Jesus intended to establish a visible Church which has the authority to teach in His name and to bind and to loose.  If one accepts this, one who runs afoul of her teachings must remember it is far more likely that the individual errs than the Church.

However, if one rejects this (and if the Church is wrong in her belief that Christ protects her from error, this is a pretty big delusion on the part of the Church), to remain within the Church is to demonstrate an indifference to doing what is right. 

Conclusion: Don't Spit In Our Face and Tell Us It's Raining

Essentially the Dissenter is a person who refuses to obey and considers themselves in the right for doing so.  However, reason tells us that if such a person professes to believe what the Church teaches then he or she errs when breaking with what the Church teaches in faith and morals, and is obligated to study the teaching he or she dislikes to understand why it is taught.

However, if the dissenter rejects the belief that God protects His Church from error, and her teaching is merely an opinion then the dissenter is demonstrating an inconsistency in remaining in the Church that makes such a claim.

In both cases, the dissenter displays error:

1. In the first case, for claiming to believe the Church is protected from error while rejecting her teachings.
2. In the second case for remaining within a Church they believe claim teaches falsely when she claims to be teaching truthfully.

This is why I have titled the article as I have.  The dissenter who justifies dissent from the Church while remaining within her is not living according to their beliefs.  They spit in the face of the Church through disobedience then claim that it is raining in that they claim they are doing God's will in doing so.

The dissenter should consider the ground they are on:

^{24 }“Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.

^25 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock.

^26 And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand.

^27 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.” (Matthew 7:24-27)

On what basis are you certain your house is built on rock and not sand.