I don’t have time for this, but since it is weighing me down, maybe a quick summary will let me move on with my day.
Here is the argument (note my caveat below about my use of the term perfect):
First, the church denomination where I am is quite imperfect (say, the PCA).
Second, their must be a perfect situation somewhere. Jesus would never provide less.
Third, the Roman Catholic Church claims to be perfect.
Fourth, all the problems with Roman Catholic claims must be false.
Five, any residual “imperfections” in the Roman Catholic Church must be non-essential unlike the problems I see elsewhere.
Six, so I must convert and then promote Roman Catholic claims (hopefully in that order!).
A longer blog entry would nuance what I mean by “perfect.” I am not trying to befuddle the issues with a claim that anyone is saying a denomination is sinless. But I’m unsure what other term to use. I like “perfect” because, in the NT it often has connotations of “complete” or “grown up.” But even that is not exactly what I have in mind either.
But the point here is to get across how much I am sickened by the will to delusion. Even if you go to an objectively better situation (which is not Rome, but put that to the side for a moment)…
I say again:
If you move from a worse church situation to a better church situation and the price of that move is that you must convince yourself and tell others you have now arrived at the perfect situation, then you are objectively worse off than you were before.
I was in the Basilica last night (no, not receiving secret orders from Jesuits about my work in the PCA; one of my children is in a choir that is performing there) and I felt the force of many attractions. But even if I could convince myself it was better (and, sorry, I think it is worse) it still would be an act of perfidy to pretend that this was best.
Good stuff. Thanks Mark!
Mark,
I don’t know any Catholic who has made this argument. And I think you wouldn’t want to set up a strawman.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Catholics may not make that argument as an argument, but that is definitely the argument I see Reformed-type converts making to themselves. Whether or not the apologists are intending it, I have seen people join the RCC as result of precisely that line of thinking on more than one occasion, as well as recent converts using it to explain to their Protestant friends why they did what they did. Either something in the message Catholics are communicating, or something that would-be converts are misconstruing definitely leads this way. If this isn’t what Catholic apologists want people to think, they’ve got work to do to fix it.
And I think that Mark’s right that even if this isn’t intended as a logical argument, you do have to accept the premises he outlined in order to convert, and he’s right about the conclusion, too.
I understand your point but I contend it is THE argument.
Agreed, given the complete mess that is Roman Catholicism today (gay priests, liberal theology, Eucharist in one kind, etc, etc) you would think these converts would focus on righting their own ship rather than casting stones at Protestants. At the least you would think they would stay silent for a few years until they learn wisdom. Rather, they are often the most vocal and naive about what the situation within their own walls.
Note also that they never say that the Bible study is better in their new parish, or the parish life, the fellowship, and so on. Only the intellectual world in their head is better.
Bryan, you say it is not your argument but you also offer statements like this as if they were anything other than a wish-fantasy:
Bryan, your belief that there is such succession is 1) probably false and 2) not subject to anything like the certainty needed for such an essential question, and 3) based on your faith that there must be such a succession to make your definition work in the real world.
Mark,
Regarding (1), I have found no evidence showing that it is “probably false”. If you have found such evidence, perhaps you could substantiate your claim. Regarding (2), what is the degree of certainty needed for such an essential question, and how did you calculate it? Regarding (3), I have no idea how you think you can read my mind. But, (3) is just false. It is also uncharitable, because I could (but I won’t) say the same thing to you: i.e. “You just believe what you believe to make your definition of faith work in the real world…” That’s what we call a deconstructive ad hominem. “You believe x because you need/want to believe …. y.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
I don’t get how the RCC is any less circular. Protestantism says that Jesus made the Apostles authoritative, and they get to define doctrine for us. Roman Catholicism says Jesus made the Apostles and their successors, especially the successor of Peter, authoritative and they get to define doctrine for us. Both claims argue that the reason their authorities have authority is because Jesus gave it to them, and both claim Jesus is the ultimate authority is God.
In terms of circularity there seems to be no difference; just, there is a different historical claim about what Jesus said, and then the need for a great deal more historical apologetics to defend a succession that is essential to the RCC position.
3. is not mind-reading, it is the actual content of your argumentation. How much historical argumentation do I find on your blog compared to argumentation that Protestantism must not be correct? It is always an attempt to show that Catholicisms historic claims must be true because Protestantism is circular.
A historical claim would produce historical evidence. That is not what we see in Roman Catholic apologetics.
Mark,
You claimed that my belief “that there is [apostolic] succession” is “based on [my] faith that …. x”. But that is false. My belief that there is such a succession is a basis for my faith. So, you’ve misunderstood (and misrepresented) my position.
No where on my blog have I argued that apostolic succession must be true to make [my] definition work in the real world. If you disagree, then please point to the blog post where you think I have made such an argument.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Pentamom,
“you do have to accept the premises he outlined in order to convert, and he’s right about the conclusion, too.”
I became convinced that the Catholic Church is what she claims to be, while disbelieving premises (2), (3), (4), and (5) of Mark’s argument, and I think what this shows is the massive conceptual disconnect between Protestants and Catholics. If you think that converts to Catholicism must believe all those premises in order to convert, then you do not understand converts or the Catholic Church, but are imposing your own paradigm on their thinking, as if this is what they must be thinking. I think a better approach, instead of assuming what converts must be thinking, is to ask them.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Okay, Bryan, then I’ll grant you as an exception and withdraw the statement that it’s necessary. However, I HAVE heard other converts say just those things — not what I assume they must think, but what they have told me.
Keep in mind that Mark is claiming to use a somewhat idiosyncratic definition of “perfect” here. I’ve never heard anyone claim that Rome is “perfect,” but when it comes down to it, the imperfections tend to be noted and dismissed as not of the essence of the question. So it is “perfect enough,” or perfect up to the standard that is expected that “Jesus would not give us less than.” There is certainly an argument that a standard exists that Jesus would not less us fall short of, that Rome meets it, and that nobody does, or can by definition.
And given those caveats, I have in fact heard people make exactly those defenses of their conversion.