The Objective and the Experiential: A Reply to Steven Nemes
By: Intellectual Conservatism
Tags: Bible, Religion, Theology, Catholic, Jesus

“Our experiences can help us know that our intentions are sincere, but they alone cannot determine with all the necessary precision whether or not one’s belief system is objectively true or false, corresponding with the evidence.”

I wrote a reply to Steven’s blog post concerning whether or not “the one true Church” thesis is true. Steven answered in the negative, and I offered a defense of the affirmative.

Steven’s argument was that ecclesial affiliation is much like the Gentile-Jewish divide in the apostolic age: both are irrelevant to salvation, as evidenced by Paul’s teaching and our experience today of saved people in various denominations.

I rebutted that:

(1) people being saved outside of visible communion with the Catholic Church is not incompatible with the thesis that there is only one true Church, as the Church teaches that even people outside of visible communion can receive the graces that can ONLY come from the Catholic Church, Christ’s body, because of God’s mercy given invincible ignorance,

(2) Ecclesial affiliation can become a salvation issue if one knows that the Catholic Church was established by Christ and one refuses to join, as such a rejection dishonors the authority of the Messiah,

and (3) Steven’s argument is a red herring with respect to the question of what kind of Church Christ built.

I submit that (3) is where the debate needs to be had: if Jesus did in fact build a Church with apostolic succession and a Petrine head, then whatever inconsistencies there might be must be harmonized. Alas, Steven’s most recent blog does not engage my arguments for (3), such as the numerous parallels between the Jerusalem High Court and the institution left behind by the apostles.

So, let us focus on his objections to (1) and (2) to show that the harmonizations on offer for the Catholic are reasonable.

Steven argues that my position is really ideology and not theology. Ideology is unfalsifiable, because the standard for proof or disproof can constantly be changed at the arguer’s convenience. Steven then presents a double-bind: either the Catholic must say that the faithful outside of visible communion with the Church are not actually saved despite what experience and scripture teach, or the Catholic must say that those faithful are saved despite what appears to be vincible and not invincible ignorance. Thus, the concept of “invincible ignorance” only serves as ideology in that it is a “get out of jail free” card for Catholics.

The core of my response is this: The real debate lies in (3), because Steven’s objections to (1)-(2) can be equally applied against him and any solutions he might develop can also be used by the Catholic. Regarding the double-bind, for those outside of the objective sanctification of the sacraments, their fate ultimately rests at the foot of God who is able to see into the intentions and hearts of men perfectly. So even if someone appears to be in a state of vincible ignorance, I may say he appears vincibly ignorant but I cannot speak as if I were God and insist after his death that he is definitely damned.

Consider first a general problem with Steven’s emphasis on experience. Experience also tells us that there are good, gentle, self-sacrificing people of various religious or even non-religious backgrounds. Their religious systems or philosophies might closely mimic central Christian truths, and so their lives manifest what we would consider fruits of the Spirit. Perhaps they even have remarkable inner-experiences of something spiritual — or even experiences in the external world — confirming their beliefs.

The follower of such a religion could ask, “How can Steven say that my religion is false, because it contradicts the central claims of Christianity, when my experience has told me otherwise?” Or, even another Christian could ask Steven, “How can you say their religion is false, when I have experienced what appears to be Christlikeness from them?” Steven might reply, “Although their religion is false, that does not mean that they will not be saved as noted by their/your experiences” or he could say, “Their religion is false, and therefore they will not be saved despite their/your experiences.”

I’m inclined to say that Steven sides with the former option rather than the latter. If that’s the case, then Steven would have to concede that it is possible for someone’s religious system or philosophy to be false and nonetheless have experiences that would at least compel us to consider the possibility for those visibly outside of Christianity to be saved. Let us now swap the word “Christianity” for “Catholicism”, and one arrives at a suitable analogy for the position I defended.

Consider another example. There are still Arians, Nestorians, and Monophysites alive today who nonetheless gather in their churches, share in the Christian life, and appear to display the fruits of the Spirit. Each of these doctrines have dire implications for the atonement, because they make false claims about the metaphysical identity of Jesus. If taken to their logical conclusion, they would leave man and God at odds without Jesus’ hypostatically unified body being crushed for our redemption.

Seeing as Steven is not an Arian and Nestorian nor a Monophysite, he might conclude that they will be saved in spite of their false religious beliefs which nonetheless do, objectively speaking, endanger the Gospel’s integrity. I hope Steven does not deny that such heresies objectively endanger the Gospel’s integrity regardless of the experiences of the heretic.

Likewise, the Catholic position is that Jesus objectively built a Church with a visible hierarchical structure, with Peter and his successors at the head and his brother apostles and their successors as the rest of the body in the bishopric. The Church’s construction is based on the Messianic expectations and prophecies before and during the New Testament period fulfilled by Jesus, and therefore they are intimately connected to the identity of the Redeemer. Cyprian of Carthage writes, “If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church; 251 AD).

It is my belief, as a Protestant convert to Catholicism, that Protestant ecclesiology ends up stripping Christ of His full Messianic glory as the Son of David and the New Moses; it removes the Church’s children from her historical traditions and identity; and it stands in direct defiance to the Christ of historical reality. I believe Protestants will be saved in spite of their ecclesiology— as I’m sure Steven believes I will be saved in spite of what he perceives to be my false Catholic beliefs.

And so I wish to emphasize here that the Catholic Church has to harmonize a set of objective and subjective considerations much like Steven reconciling the objective truth of Christianity with the experiences of even apparently just unbelievers and heretics.

First, the Church recognizes that Christ objectively gave the Church a certain structure and set of powers (Matthew 16:19; 18:18; Luke 10:16; John 20:23, etc.), and Jesus intended for His flock to remain united in His visible body (John 17:21; Ephesians 4:11–13).

Second, the Church also observes from her experience that there are people who seemingly do not or could not have known any better and do not enter into communion with her or lack any awareness of the Gospel.

Thus, she extends God’s mercy upon persons who are said to be invincibly ignorant and, in her modesty, leaves the ultimate judgment into God’s hands while maintaining delicate obedience to what her Lord has definitively spoken and the rich deposit given to her from Christ and the apostles.

I therefore urge Steven to be more fair towards the Catholic Church and respond to my historical and Biblical arguments for the magisterium.

Epilogue:

As practical advice to my readers, rather than wasting one’s time worrying about whether or not one is knowingly rejecting the Catholic Church, that time ought to be spent growing in knowledge of the Church, and, even if one remains unconvinced, pray to God and remain open to the evidence, as the Church teaches God’s mercy on those who are sincere. Our experiences can help us know that our intentions are sincere, but they alone cannot determine with all the necessary precision whether or not one’s belief system is objectively true or false, corresponding with the evidence.

Take the advice of John Stuart Mill (whom I otherwise usually disagree with):

“He who knows only of his own side of the case, knows little of that… Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to that argument or to bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form…”

In my investigation into Catholicism, I knew I could not begin with the assumption that Protestantism is the default. Rather, I had to begin with the scriptures, their earliest reception, and piece together history like a New Testament scholar and then see from there whether the seed planted 2,000 years ago organically led to Protestantism or Catholicism. I investigated Catholicism, willing to endure rejection and ridicule if it was made evident to me that joining is necessary in order to attain perfect obedience to Him. I became Catholic, because of my love for Christ and my desire to know Him fully as the Messiah of Israel who fulfilled every last covenant and built a Church that would endure until the end of time with the backing of heaven.

It is my hope that we do not forget, in this entire debate, to be curious if there is something more to know and love about Jesus Christ.

The rest is history.