As those of you who follow Catholic/Protestant dialogue surely know, there’s a lot of debate that surrounds what is called “the tu quoque.” Here’s how it works: a Catholic will accuse a Protestant of not submitting in any meaningful sense to ecclesiastical authority since he chose his church based solely on its agreement with his own interpretation of Scripture. “At the end of the day,” the Catholic says, “all you’re doing is submitting to yourself.”At this point the Protestant responds by saying something like, “Well, you’re no different, especially if you converted to Catholicism as an adult: you also weighed the biblical and historical evidence in order to reach your own conclusions, so we don’t see why you should have exclusive ecclesiological bragging rights.” In other words, the Protestant response is “Tu quoque,” which is Latin for “You, too.”
One of the ways that Catholics seek to escape the charge that they’re just as beholden to private judgment as Protestants is by appealing to the fact that the criterion by which they identify the true church is objective, whereas that by which Protestants identify the true church is subjective: “We look to the historical fact of apostolic succession,” they say, “but you look for a church that agrees with how you understand the Bible. Therefore we’re not in the same epistemic boat at all.”
Some thoughts....
First, I agree that a new Catholic surrenders interpretive authority once he joins the church, while a new Protestant in some degree retains it. After all, if a Protestant one day finds that his church no longer agrees with him on matters that he deems essential, he is free to leave and look for a church that is more in line with his interpretation of Scripture. Catholics can’t do that—they have no choice but to submit their interpretations to the Magisterium, regardless of whether they personally agree or not.
Secondly, I agree that, all things being equal, an appeal to historical facts is less subjective than an appeal to an interpretation of biblical data.
But herein lies the problem.
Before a Catholic arrives at the conclusion that the historical fact of apostolic succession is indeed the proper criterion by which the true church can be located, he must do the biblical and historical research to reach that conclusion. For example, he must first determine that apostolic succession is a “fact” rather than a fiction (and plenty of scholars believe that apostolic succession is a myth). He must then invest that “fact” with the ecclesiological significance needed in order to elevate it to the level of being a necessary condition for identifying the true church. So it is only after all of this private interpretation of the historical and biblical data is complete that the soon-to-be Catholic can even arrive at the place where he has his so-called objective criterion in place. But if you think about it, this is no different than (1) a person doing the exact same research and concluding that apostolic succession, while perhaps being a useful tool in the early days to find the church, has ceased to be a relevant factor given the church’s failure to maintain the Pauline gospel. It’s also no different than (2) a person concluding from his biblical and historical research that the objective criterion by which to locate the true church is that justification by faith alone is preached.
So in conclusion, the Catholic’s point that his criterion is objective while ours is subjective is only true if you don’t start the clock until after he has finished doing all the subjective stuff in order to figure out what his criterion is in the first place.
When it comes to the most crucial part of the church-choosing process, therefore, the Catholic is indeed subject to the Protestant’s tu quoque objection, for before he surrenders his interpretive authority to the Magisterium he must work out from the Bible and church history what the proper criterion is for locating the true church.
93 comments: