Good blogs have regular smaller posts with brief arguments and conversation starters, not necessarily flooded with footnotes. So, expect more like this on the regular, every week.
It's popular among many lay and some professional Catholic apologists to argue that Papal/Magisterial Infallibility is more likely or even necessary because such is needed to gain absolute doctrinal certainty, and thus prevent the constant splits of Protestant denominations. Often this is said only with respect to more 'obscure' passages, but other times it is said for all scriptures. My response will be relevant to both.
Now, maybe, MAYBE the Catholic would have a point, if the Roman Catholic Church had an infallibly proclaimed edition, translation, and commentary of the scriptures. Not merely approved, but infallibly so, since, after all, something must be infallible to be certain. So, do they? Well, no.
First, on not having an infallible edition. Don't mistake this for not having an infallibly proclaimed canon. They do, being declared by the Council of Trent; an Ecumenical Council, and so, according to Catholics, binding on the faithful, infallible. And if this declaration is infallible, then it simply can't be changed. And so far, they haven't, so first point goes to the RCC.
But there isn't an infallibly proclaimed edition of the Bible; that is, an exact version of the canonical texts. Protestant apologist TurretinFan has argued that Trent also defined a specific edition [I], which would basically demolish Magisterial infallibility, since we know now that the Vulgate has issues, and the RCC itself has revised its official Bible multiple times, eventually ditching the Vulgate altogether with the aptly named Nova Vulgata (New Vulgate) in 1979, which is basically Nestle-Aland 26 (a modern[ist] critical text) translated into Latin. However, Barrett Turner at Called to Communion has argued that the specific edition called for at Trent was done so as a "juridical" and non-infallible measure [II]. Having read his sources and while still reading the full sources from Trent, I lean towards Barrett's conclusion, although I see potential defeaters that may, in fact, prove an "infallibly" proclaimed edition, and by extension, an error by an allegedly infallible council. So far, however, I believe the RCC has not taken an infallible stance on an exact text of the scriptures.
But that right there is a problem, at least for the "we need infallibility" argument. If the Church can't even infallibly decide on the very text of the scriptures themselves, what use are they to infallibly decide on the peculiarities of interpreting scripture? How can they even be trusted to make infallible decisions on the very thing they can't infallibly define with exactitude?
And these aren't just quibbles on spelling or syntax differences; entire Gospel accounts like Mark's resurrection account (Mk. 16:9 - 20) and the incident of the adulteress (known as the Pericope Adulterae, Jn. 7:53 - 8:11) live or die depending on your text critical opinions, among many other differences that change the meanings of many passages. Entire doctrines are affected depending on your manuscript philosophy, both in the Old and the New Testament (for the often under-appreciated doctrinal significance of textual variants in the NT, I highly recommend a perusal of Pastor James Snapp Jr.'s blog [III]. He is - in my and some others' opinions - the smartest and most thorough text critic alive).
But arguably worse than no infallibly-approved text base is the lack of infallibly-approved translation or commentary. A translation is effectively a mini-commentary on the scriptures, since you have to make doctrinally significant judgement calls at many, many points. For example, does αὐθεντέω in 1 Timothy 2:12 [IV] mean "to exercise authority", or "to take authority", or "to domineer", or any number of other suggested translations? The sense you choose for the word - neutral or negative connotation, ingressive or non-ingressive sense - decides whether the passage condemns women pastors or merely the abuse of leadership by women (among other interpretations). And I know from experience that this passage is a go-to prooftext for traditional Catholics in opposing female priests, so this is no small matter. And this is the case for countless other words and passages.
Then you still need a commentary proper. Both before and after translation, many passages need further explanation. By and large, most interdenominational debates occur on this level, even more than translation debates in my experience (although they often occur hand in hand). Among the most obvious examples would be Romans 8 - 9; are all people pre-destined to salvation and damnation? Or is Paul just emphasising God's sovereignty but without contradicting human will in accepting salvation?
So, where is the infallibly proclaimed commentary on scriptures? Where can I go to get a definitive, unequivocal answer to the many debated passages like Romans 8 - 9? I know of a few Catholic Study Bibles, but none with a Papal Bull printed in the underside, let alone one with "Ex Cathedra" stamped on the edge.
All of this to say; what is the use of infallibility? You (allegedly) have absolute certainty on a small handful of issues and passages. Fantastic, how about the rest? Where are the infallible interpretations on the countless passages that helped create the "FoUrTy ThOuSaNd" denominations you beat us over the head with? Finally, what is your infallibility doing about the modernist scourge in your Church? And outright heretics (even by Protestant standards) like "Father" James Martin? Where was your infallibility when Christendom split in half in 1054, and when your remnant split again in the 16th century?
Papal infallibility is, in the end, a canon (pun intended) without ammo. But if not infallibility, then what? How can we maintain certainty without an infallible guide? We use our eyes, ears, and brains, as God assumed Israel would when he gave Moses the Law, without any infallible interpreter beyond direct, one-off prophetic revelations, and only at rare intervals at that. And when Israel strayed on multiple occasions, including in the NT period, did God finally say "right, thats it, you need a Pope"? No, he said "Read your Bible" , and do so at the expense of a contradicting magisterium (Matt. 15:1 - 9). Will there be disagreement on interpretation? Yes. So what do we do? We do what Christ, Paul, the Apostles, and the Church Fathers did; we investigate the scriptures for the correct interpretation.
Don't let Catholic apologists make obscure what God made for clarity.
~~~
I - TurretinFan, Calvin, Trent, and the Vulgate: Responding to Barrett Turner.
https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/06/calvin-trent-and-vulgate-responding-to.html
II - Barrett Turner, Calvin, Trent, and the Vulgate: Misinterpreting the Fourth Session.
https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/06/calvin-trent-and-the-vulgate-misinterpreting-the-fourth-session/
III - http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/
IV - "But I am not permitting a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority upon a man."
No comments:
Post a Comment