A(nother) Response to Protestantism

I have been asked by a friend to write the following argument in response this this article, presented by a protestant writer.

As will be seen, the argument of the article is simply false. It is poorly reasoned, and fails to reflect Catholic principles, whilst failing to understand some basic ideas in logic and epistemology. What's more, as the author has opted to use a somewhat belligerent tone when addressing Catholicism, it seems only fair to use the same tone when dealing with the blind, arrogant heresy of Protestantism.

Let's begin with the first part of the argument. The writer claims:

"Roman Catholics want to say that the final authority for judging doctrine lies with Rome over any individual.

But this is itself a doctrine (let’s call it the doctrine of the Magisterium).

Thus, if it is possible for you as an individual to judge the doctrine of the Magisterium, then you as an individual are necessarily the final authority over Rome for judging doctrine.

Catholics are therefore caught on the horns of a dilemma:

If individuals do not have final authority to judge doctrine, then we would be contradicting ourselves to conclude that the Magisterium is true, since we would be assuming authority we cannot have;

If individuals do have final authority to judge doctrine, then we would be contradicting ourselves to conclude that the Magisterium is true, since that entails we do not have such authority."

And with that, we see how the author is wrong from the first instant. Typical of Protestant pride and the sophistic-liberalism which underlies their thinking, they assume that recognising a truth and being the authority to determine it for others are one and the same thing. That is what creates the "dilemma".

When a man makes a claim such as "2+2=4" or "God exists", these claims do not have authority over these truths. Instead, these truths exist upon their own authority, external to the individual man, and the rational mind may recognise and follow these truths (or, of course, fail to do so).

So too when the individual Catholic regards the Magisterium of the Church. The author betrays his utter lack of understanding when he suggests that individual Catholics have the final say over the veracity of Magisterial truths. As if the Magisterium can claim: "Mary was Immaculately Conceived”, and the individual can say “Pfft, nah. Don’t buy it.” as if that has any baring whatsoever on whether the doctrine is true or not. When, in fact, the obvious case is that it simply doesn’t.

Now, perhaps the author is saying that we use our “own authority” to determine whether or not the Magisterium should be followed. But again, this is false (or at least a sophistic use of language). It’s like saying that we use our “own authority” to determine whether or not Jesus Christ is Lord-and-Saviour. Of course, we do no such thing. Jesus Christ is Lord-and-Saviour regardless of what you, me, or anyone else thinks about it. The most we do is use our reason to align with that objective truth. Likewise, The Church with Her Magisterium is the authority on Christian doctrine, and Catholics simply utilise their reason to accept that fact.

Hence, the whole argument between Catholicism and Protestantism does indeed come down to this: if we employ our reason, should we conclude that The Catholic Church is the authority on Christian doctrine or not?

That’s also why the author is wrong when he writes:

“By debating you in the first place, [the Catholic] is tacitly conceding and assuming the very thing he is trying to deny and ridicule: that individuals actually can reason together to interpret scripture and judge doctrine. If he didn’t believe this, he wouldn’t be trying to debate you.”

No… when we are debating Protestants, we are not assuming an equal footing. We are not assuming any kind of equal authority because Catholics recgonise themselves as under the authority of The Church, and Protestants recognise themselves (individually) as the authorities of doctrine. Hence, this is a perverse kind of projection. The Catholics point outwards and say “the authority is over there, and we should reason together to show why we should follow it…” whereas the Protestant points to themselves and says “No… the authority is right here.”

Again, it is based on the misnomer that the debate between Protestants and Catholics is an extended debate about individual doctrines. It is no such thing (although, it is common enough that Catholics can get “caught in the weeds” with Protestants, trying to show the possible solution for every counter-Catholic question that can be raised), but instead the debate goes beyond individual doctrines and ultimately comes back to the ultimate nature and method for determining doctrine as-such.

And, as has always been the case, Catholicism comes out on the winning side of this debate.

This brings us to the most damning part of this article, and the point at which Protestantism continues to reveal its absurd and abhorrent nature. The author writes:

“ [When Catholics ask:] Who gave you the final authority to figure out what God means when he says something?

The answer is simple: The same person who gave you that authority: God.

To deny this authority is really to deny that we have the personal responsibility to hear God and receive his instruction...”

What this alleged authority on Christianity has done, is perverted the nature of God and His truth. Also, because he lacks a truly fundamental appreciation of epistemology and logic, let’s go back to the basic basics…

Ultimately, can truth be divided against itself? No.

Does truth ultimately allow for self-contradiction? No.

Therefore, is God’s truth divided against itself, and does it allow for contradictions? Certainly not.

Now, what is the Catholic argument against Protestantism?

That Protestant denomination, X, Y, Z & 3578+ all have not only different interpretations of scripture, but interpretations that are fundamentally incompatible. To take just a few examples… do all Protestants denominations agree/teach the same things about:

• The possibility of losing salvation?

• The necessity of Baptism?

• The divinity of Jesus Christ?

• The point at which a person has committed sin (or what things even are sinful or not)?

In truth, something is either sinful, or it isn’t. Salvation is either losable, or it isn’t. Christ is either divine, or He isn’t. And Baptism is either necessary, or it isn’t. Differing views on these issues are simply not compatible, and differing views will necessarily lead to fundamentally different and incompatible understandings of what Christianity is, and how to be a good Christian. There might be substantial overlap on these questions amongst Protestant sects, but there are plenty of exceptions (even plenty of exceptions within denominations), and those exceptions are fundamentally damning because, according to Protestant thinking, all have equal authority to determine what Scripture means.

But, here’s the worst part:

Protestants teach that The Holy Ghost is guiding them in their interpretations. That is to say: the very Spirit of Truth; the power of God Himself – Truth which is, in its nature, pure, consistent and undivided, is leading all of these Protestants into an endless, ever-divding cavalcade of confused and contradictory conclusions.

I don’t care what your interpretation is. That’s blasphemy.

What you will also notice is that the author makes no attempt whatsoever to address this problem of infinite contradictions. Instead, he seems to take it as a given that Christian doctrine will always be broken and contradictory, insulting the nature of truth, and denying God’s promise that He would send the Spirit of Truth to guide His Church.

That is also why he leads into another patently absurd statement:

“Infallible interpreters simply do not prevent private error. They cannot eliminate the distinction between the truth, and your interpretation of the truth. Your Catholic is just as likely to misunderstand the Magisterium as you are to misunderstand scripture. Indeed, rather than preventing this, the Magisterium actually compounds the problem: the Roman Catholic system of bulls and encyclicals is vastly more complicated and difficult to understand than scripture is. So the Catholic is more likely to become confused by Roman Catholicism + scripture than you are to become confused by scripture alone. If the Catholic is able to understand the infallible Magisterium, then mutatis mutandis the Protestant is able to understand the infallible scriptures — so what need is there of a Magisterium? It adds nothing but confusion.”

What on earth makes you think that scripture is “simple”? The Bible is a very old collection of books; originally written in multiple, ancient languages; translated multiple times into new languages; and is inspired by God, with a level of inter-connected depth and complexity which befits the divine… and you, individual Protestant, pick that up and think: “simple enough for me…”? It’s just hubris of the highest degree. If you could point to a consistent body of interpretation that resulted from this, maybe you would have an argument. But again: the evidence shows that the meaning of The Bible is evidently not clear to Protestants, given the endless contradictory interpretations it leads them into.

Now, however deep and complex The Catholic Magisterium can be, it has still resulted in a global body of doctrine which has remained consistent for 2000+ years. Plus, most Catholics don’t need to study the whole thing, because it has mostly developed to address individual confusions as they have arisen. The Magisterium works something like this:

Magisterium: “We believe in the Trinity.”

Individual: “Do we have to?”

Magesterium: “Yes.”

Individual (500 years later): “But do we really need to?”

Magsterium: “Yes.”

Individual (1000 years later): “But I don’t really think that we need to because of this reason…”

Magisterium: “Just to be clear, we all believe in the Trinity and here’s why… and just to re-iterate again, if you don’t believe it, you’re not Catholic.”, and so on and so forth.

The claim is never that the Magisterium removes all possibility of error amongst individuals. Only that the standard of truth itself remains in-tact so that individuals can know what they are falling short of.

Hence, the very claim that it “adds nothing but confusion” is simply the opposite of the truth. The Magisterium has helped to maintain understanding and consistency amongst Catholics for 2000 years despite all of the heretics claiming that some super-special, new, individualised interpretation of scripture has helped them find the real true-true, despite the fact that it would mean that The Holy Ghost has flown head-long against Himself.

Thank God for The Magisterium.

For all of these reasons, the rest of the article is moot.

The author talks about the Church “managing” without a Magisterium, but then talks about the Old-Covenant Jews which are not The Church that Christ Established, and before the promise of The Spirit of Truth (which he would know if he ever read The Bible). Again, we see a faulty conclusion built on a protestant's own, shoddy interpretation. Since the establishment of the Christian (Catholic) Church, there has always been a Magisterium, presided over by St. Peter and the Apostles.

Also, the author talks of Catholicism being one denomination amongst others. But it isn’t. Given that it has the mark of truth (consistency), it stands distinctly apart from the false, counterfeit forms of “Christianity” whose names are legion, including all of the so-called “denominations” of Protestantism.

Given that Protestantism grows new heads like a hydra, there will doubtless be many more little objections that pop-up in response to this article. But for now, it has hopefully been shown that the tenuous arguments of the Protestant position are build on sand, and neither address Catholicism as it is, nor understands the nature of Truth in its basic operations.