ecumenical dialogue. Out of respect and charity, each person gets to define, articulate and specify what is his own position, such that no one ought knowingly to attribute to or impose upon another, a position his interlocutor denies is his own. The one holding a position has the say in determining what is his position. And this therefore requires on the part of each interlocutor a disposition and willingness to listen so as to allow his own conception of the other interlocutor’s position to be informed and shaped by the other interlocutor.
So when you claim that in Catholicism there is no justification at baptism, because good works are required to follow, and I reply by pointing out to you that this is a straw man of the Catholic doctrine, and you reply by insisting that it is not a straw man, we are at an impasse until you abide by the basic ground rule I mentioned just above. To impose on Catholics your own conception of what the Catholic doctrine of justification must be, and refuse to allow your conception of the Catholic doctrine of justification to be informed by Catholics, is no longer to be engaged in dialogue, but rather the verbal form of brute force, or bullying. CTC, however, is a forum for dialogue.
You wrote:
Catholic doctrine insists on justification by grace plus works of righteousness, does it not? Is this not what justification-as-translation and justification-as-increase refer to?
No, it is not. The role of works is not the same in justification-as-translation, and justification-as-increase. I’ve explained this both in the post and comments above, and here as well.
You then wrote:
One is either justified, or they are not. We are either right with God or we are not.
That first statement is true of justification-as-translation, because of the truth of your second statement. But it does not entail that there is no such thing as justification-as-increase. The problem, it seems to me, is that you are imposing your [Protestant] conception of the meaning of the term ‘justification’ onto the Catholic paradigm, and thus begging the question (i.e. presupposing precisely what is in question between the two paradigms regarding the doctrine of justification).
Lastly you wrote:
It is not I who insists that there is something called justification-as-increase, as if justification could be divided. We are justified by Christ… and it is finished. Sanctification is not a part of justification… it is the result of justification. So no, the Protestant does not see sanctification as a requirement of justification.
This is an example of imposing a concept from your own paradigm onto another paradigm, and then criticizing the second paradigm on the basis of the imposed concept, rather than on the other paradigm’s own terms. You’re insisting that there is no such thing as justification-as-increase, and doing so by presupposing that the meaning of the term ‘justification’ is the Reformed conception of the term’s meaning. That simply begs the question, by presupposing one paradigm in the evaluation of the other. And presupposing one paradigm in the evaluation of the other is not actually comparing the two paradigms. When used within an argument in ecumenical dialogue it implies that the person still sees the other paradigm’s claims only through his own paradigm, and thus has not yet begun the task of evaluating the two paradigms because he has not yet seen the other paradigm as another paradigm.
also from comment 65 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/05/pope-francis-atheists-and-the-evangelical-spirit/
from comment 59 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/07/twitter-world-youth-day-and-indulgences/#comment-53807
Ecumenical dialogue is not a way of finding out that we don’t disagree after all. It’s a way of understanding our differences, and finding out if one (or both) of us is wrong. That’s why argument – meaning giving reasons, following the rules of logic, etc – is necessary. Ecumenical dialogue then satisfies everyone only when they reach agreement – and if one (at least) is wrong, he must change his mind for there to be agreement.
also here http://www.catholic.com/blog/matt-fradd/responding-to-the-ad-hominem-fallacy
explains ad hominem and also a variation of thead hominem fallacy usually called “poisoning the wel and The third example is also a type of ad hominem argument, called tu quoque (literally, “you too”). The tu quoque fallacy consists in accusing your opponent of the same thing he has accused you of.
He gives examples and points out'' attacking you (your character, intelligence, etc.) doesn't deal with the argument at hand, then invite him to spend his energy on that instead.''
from comment 78
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/archbishop-minnerath-on-rome-the-papacy-and-the-east/
Arguments, as such, are neither true nor false: they are sound or unsound. An argument A is sound just in case (a) A’s premises are true, and (b) A’s conclusion follows from its premises if A is a deductive argument, or A’s conclusion is rendered highly probable by its premises if A is an inductive argument. So if you’re going to refute my argument, you have to show either that at least one of its premises is false, or that its conclusion is not supported by its premises, even if the premises are true.
from a comment here --this article is good by the way http://www.creedcodecult.com/divide-and-dismiss/
“This is typical Protestant behavior. You are debunked on the subject at hand but rather than admit it, you simply begin insulting the Church, the Pope or Mary and the Saints and attack a separate and unrelated doctrine.”
and from another comment
The Catholic Church has a centre. As ignorant as I am about the intricacies of theology, I can tell when a teaching does not agree with that of the Church. I can tell if a Joe Pelosi or Nancy Biden or a pagan philosopher lesbian or a Catechist or priest or Bishop is contradicting the teachings of the Church. There is a standard (alive and breathing) against which I can measure every teaching/doctrine I come across.
So constantly bringing up this Pelosi guy and his crowd does not show that there is doctrinal division in the Church. The doctrines of the Church are clear. These guys are on their own.
What is the centre of Protestantism?
from comment 20 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/06/virtue-and-dialogue-ecumenism-and-the-heart/ :
about not begging the question -found at comment 318 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/why-protestantism-has-no-visible-catholic-church/
I think a lot of people are unclear as to how to avoid begging the question. Here are some standard methods:
1) Don’t rely on a premise p in your argument that you accept but your opponent rejects. Using premises accepted by both sides (or all sides, etc) is just fine.
2) Do “internal” criticisms rather than “external” criticisms. (This was first presented to me in the context of a graduate class I took on Marxism). One can give “external” arguments against Marxism and these would, for example, take the form of arguing that Marxism is wrong based on some or other capitalistic premises. Alternatively, one can give “internal” arguments against Marxism – arguments that, even granting Marxist premises, Marxism is still wrong on its own terms. In this context, your arguments about Free Will were purely external. (I’ll summarize and apologize in advance if I misunderstood some claim you made): A. Catholicism denies the position on Free Will known as compatibalism and allows the position on Free Will known as libertertarianism. B. But libertarianism is wrong and compatibalism is correct. So, C, Catholicism is wrong. So, D, Catholicism is false. Since your justifications for (B) relied on premises not accepted by Catholics, your criticisms were external rather than internal. Further, (B) is quite controversial – so even in terms of external arguments it’s very weak (for external criticisms you want your premise accepted by one side but not the other to be as uncontroversial as possible – because the more controversial it is, the less likely it is to persuade anybody, much less someone who antecedently disagrees with your premises!) (Obviously, 2 is just an argumentative application of 1.)
An internal criticism of Catholicism would be to find two infallible doctrines, one of which asserts p and the other of which asserts ~p (not-p) in the same sense. On premises fully accepted by Catholics, if the Magisterium has infallibly held to a contradiction like that, Catholicism is false. So, when I was doing my “due diligence” before converting, I thought “Surely an institution which has been around so long must have contradicted itself at some point or other, particularly if [as my OPC pastor said] Catholicism is a man-made institution”. After my examination, and having found no such contradictions, this constituted significant evidence (although not proof) that the Catholic Church was what she claimed to be – that is, the Church founded by Christ.
But since you opted for an external criticism based on a significantly contentious premise, you’ve thoroughly weakened your own argumentation, particularly since it’s far from obvious that compatibalism is (philosophically) correct or (theologically) necessitated by correct Biblical exegesis. (And it kind of doesn’t matter, because one of the very points in dispute is whether the Roman Catholic Church gets exegetical priority over my or your individual exegeses – but if the Catholic Church gets exegetical priority, then your arguments about correct Biblical interpretation would have to give way to the Church’s declarations anyways.) Speaking of…
3) Make your claims if/thens. Not sure if you’ve read Mike Liccione’s philosophical piece here or not but he does a masterful job of avoiding begging the question by doing just this. More specifically, one of Mike’s claims (or rather, my summary of it) is that if there is to be a principled way to distinguish human opinion from divine revelation, then Protestantism has no means to provide that kind of distinction. What I found fascinating when I talked (at relatively great length) with conservative Presbyterian pastors (OPC and RPCNA) was that they conceded that there was no principled way to distinguish human opinion from divine revelation itself. But Mike’s argument avoids begging the question because it did not assert a premise rejected by his opponents – indeed, these confessional pastors I talked to fully agreed that if there was to be a principled way to distinguish human opinion from divine revelation, then Protestantism couldn’t do it – they just also thought no such principled way actually existed.
also this point from comment 48 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/11/sola-scriptura-redux-matthew-barrett-tradition-and-authority/
You are assuming your conclusion on the basis of assumptions you are bringing to the text, because the need for an authoritative interpreter is fully compatible with the verse (Mt. 4:4). So therefore you are not deriving your conclusion only from the text, but from the text in combination with assumptions you are bringing to the text. And that begs the question, because those assumptions you are bringing to the text are the assumptions *in* question
from comment 20 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/06/virtue-and-dialogue-ecumenism-and-the-heart/ :
He who lives by the sword dies by the sword, and the same is true of rudeness and incivility. If I wish to be treated with civility and respect, I must do the same. If I don’t, I invite the descent into the trading of insults and invective, and the possibility of reaching agreement is lost. So I agree with you that if we “take up those tactics” we “give license” for others to do the same. Not all exchange of communication is dialogue. The sort of exchange that takes place between Feser and Dawkins, etc. is not dialogue. It is not for the sake of reaching agreement with each other, but for defending or attacking particular claims or beliefs, so as to convince or persuade onlookers. That’s polemics. Christ’s public rebuke of the Pharisees was not a case of failing to be kind or charitable, nor was it polemics or dialogue; it was a pastoral rebuke, by the Good Shepherd. That’s a different genre, and there is a time and place for that. In this post I am speaking about dialogue, and there are virtues necessary for entering into dialogue, as I explained above. The resolution of disagreement between persons requires dialogue, as Pope Francisexplained just yesterday:
“If we go out to encounter other people, other cultures, other religions, we grow and we begin that beautiful adventure called dialogue,” he told the students.“Dialogue is what brings peace,” the pope told the group, which included Christians and Buddhists. “Peace is impossible without dialogue.“All wars, conflicts and troubles we encounter with each other are because of a lack of dialogue,” he said.Pope Francis said there is always a danger that two people with firm identities and an inability to be open to the other will fight instead of dialogue.“We dialogue to meet each other, not to fight,” he said.Dialogue involves asking the other, “Why do you think this?” or “Why is that culture this way?” then listening to the response, he said. “First listen, then talk — that’s meekness.”“If you don’t think like I do … and you can’t convince me to think like you do, that’s OK. We can still be friends,” he said.
about not begging the question -found at comment 318 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/why-protestantism-has-no-visible-catholic-church/
I think a lot of people are unclear as to how to avoid begging the question. Here are some standard methods:
1) Don’t rely on a premise p in your argument that you accept but your opponent rejects. Using premises accepted by both sides (or all sides, etc) is just fine.
2) Do “internal” criticisms rather than “external” criticisms. (This was first presented to me in the context of a graduate class I took on Marxism). One can give “external” arguments against Marxism and these would, for example, take the form of arguing that Marxism is wrong based on some or other capitalistic premises. Alternatively, one can give “internal” arguments against Marxism – arguments that, even granting Marxist premises, Marxism is still wrong on its own terms. In this context, your arguments about Free Will were purely external. (I’ll summarize and apologize in advance if I misunderstood some claim you made): A. Catholicism denies the position on Free Will known as compatibalism and allows the position on Free Will known as libertertarianism. B. But libertarianism is wrong and compatibalism is correct. So, C, Catholicism is wrong. So, D, Catholicism is false. Since your justifications for (B) relied on premises not accepted by Catholics, your criticisms were external rather than internal. Further, (B) is quite controversial – so even in terms of external arguments it’s very weak (for external criticisms you want your premise accepted by one side but not the other to be as uncontroversial as possible – because the more controversial it is, the less likely it is to persuade anybody, much less someone who antecedently disagrees with your premises!) (Obviously, 2 is just an argumentative application of 1.)
An internal criticism of Catholicism would be to find two infallible doctrines, one of which asserts p and the other of which asserts ~p (not-p) in the same sense. On premises fully accepted by Catholics, if the Magisterium has infallibly held to a contradiction like that, Catholicism is false. So, when I was doing my “due diligence” before converting, I thought “Surely an institution which has been around so long must have contradicted itself at some point or other, particularly if [as my OPC pastor said] Catholicism is a man-made institution”. After my examination, and having found no such contradictions, this constituted significant evidence (although not proof) that the Catholic Church was what she claimed to be – that is, the Church founded by Christ.
But since you opted for an external criticism based on a significantly contentious premise, you’ve thoroughly weakened your own argumentation, particularly since it’s far from obvious that compatibalism is (philosophically) correct or (theologically) necessitated by correct Biblical exegesis. (And it kind of doesn’t matter, because one of the very points in dispute is whether the Roman Catholic Church gets exegetical priority over my or your individual exegeses – but if the Catholic Church gets exegetical priority, then your arguments about correct Biblical interpretation would have to give way to the Church’s declarations anyways.) Speaking of…
3) Make your claims if/thens. Not sure if you’ve read Mike Liccione’s philosophical piece here or not but he does a masterful job of avoiding begging the question by doing just this. More specifically, one of Mike’s claims (or rather, my summary of it) is that if there is to be a principled way to distinguish human opinion from divine revelation, then Protestantism has no means to provide that kind of distinction. What I found fascinating when I talked (at relatively great length) with conservative Presbyterian pastors (OPC and RPCNA) was that they conceded that there was no principled way to distinguish human opinion from divine revelation itself. But Mike’s argument avoids begging the question because it did not assert a premise rejected by his opponents – indeed, these confessional pastors I talked to fully agreed that if there was to be a principled way to distinguish human opinion from divine revelation, then Protestantism couldn’t do it – they just also thought no such principled way actually existed.
also this point from comment 48 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/11/sola-scriptura-redux-matthew-barrett-tradition-and-authority/
You are assuming your conclusion on the basis of assumptions you are bringing to the text, because the need for an authoritative interpreter is fully compatible with the verse (Mt. 4:4). So therefore you are not deriving your conclusion only from the text, but from the text in combination with assumptions you are bringing to the text. And that begs the question, because those assumptions you are bringing to the text are the assumptions *in* question
No comments:
Post a Comment