I recently had the opportunity to present my conversion to Catholicism in a college course called Faith and Doubt, while engaging Dr. Jerry Walls on what he calls his Strongest Argument Against Catholicism. The presentation, however, was asymmetric; predominantly, I discussed what caused me to move from being non-religious to eventually Catholic – first to belief in God, and then Christ, and then God’s Church — whereas Jerry put all of his time into arguing against Catholicism. At first, it appeared I wasn’t going to have time to address Jerry’s argument, since we moved directly into QnA with the students instead of engaging each other as panelists. Fortunately, one of the students questions presented the opportunity for me to challenge Walls, from which emerged a spirited exchange. For those interested, I have obtained permission to share the discussion, which I’ve uploaded to my podcast below. Aside from the back and forth with Dr. Walls, perhaps you will find some of the interaction with students interesting, if only because not all of them are religious and presented their questions/objections, which the panelists (including myself) responded to.
Furthermore, I’ve supplemented the discussion with an extended written response to the criticisms Dr. Walls presented to the Catholic Church.
Arguing Religion In a College Course
Responding to Dr. Walls’s Argument Against Catholicism
Now, concerning Dr. Walls’s argument against Catholicism, a few additional comments are in order.
Initially, Walls critiques statements from Vatican I by comparing them to “fundamentalism” and even Young Earth Creationism. I found this critique wanting and uncharitable.
Specifically, Walls mentions how he finds it unbelievable that Vatican I states Scripture cannot stand without the Catholic magisterium. But how is that a critique, I should want to know, especially considering the many arguments against sola-scriptura and for Church authority? Namely, that Scripture itself cannot compile itself, interpret itself, nor apply itself in a modern context. In other words, it seems correct to me that you can have the Church AND the Bible, but not the Bible alone. Walls move – rhetorical as it may be – is question begging.
Walls further finds it implausible that questioning Catholic dogma about Mary or the Papacy, etc, could endanger one’s salvation. But again, the objection begs the question. Because if the Catholic Church really is God’s Church, and, if as Christ taught that “he who hears you hears me and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects Him who sent me,” (Luke 10:16) then obviously anyone who rejects Catholic teaching is *by default* rejecting Christ, and if anything endangers one’s salvation, that would be it. Notice that Walls doesn’t offer arguments against these teachings at this point in his presentation which is why I didn’t focus on these points in my counter to Walls – however persuasive they may or may not be for people who haven’t appreciated the essential issue (i.e. the question of authority), there really wasn’t much to engage with.
Wall’s primary argument concerns an appeal to authority building up to an argument from silence, and that is where I wanted to focus then and indeed where I will focus now. Essentially, Walls calls in certain Catholic historians (including Raymond Brown) who argue the evidence for a monarchical bishop in Rome just isn’t there. Again, smart rhetorical move referencing Catholic historians to undermine a critical Catholic claim, but does the argument ultimately bear out? Naturally, I am going to argue it does not.
A few preliminary remarks, before getting into the details.
Walls says that if the evidence for The Papacy isn’t as strong as the evidence for the Resurrection, then we have grounds for rejecting Catholicism. But that is a phony comparison. Getting historically to the Resurrection does not default one into Protestantism. Catholics aren’t the ones (or at least not the only ones) with a burden of proof. (In fact, Rob Koons argues in his Lutheran’s Case for Roman Catholicism that if anybody has the burden of proof it would be Protestants since they clearly departed from historical Christianity, but I’ll leave that argument for Koons to make.) Rather, the appropriate comparison would be, what is the evidence for sola-scriptura vs what is the evidence for the papacy (or first among equals if we’re talking Eastern Orthodox). In other words, once we get historically to the resurrection, then we compare what is most distinctive of Catholicism to what is most distinctive to Protestantism to see which has more historical credibility. As I mentioned to Walls, once the appropriate comparison is made, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of a visible, hierarchical, authoritative – and sacramental – Church. Worse, given the institutional fact of The Church precedes the institutional fact of the Scriptural Canon, Sola-Scriptura wouldn’t have even been possible (let alone plausible) for the earliest Christians – and God does not ask the impossible of us.
So immediately Wall’s argument is based off an unjustified comparison. While I believe it is true that the Papacy is distinctive of Catholicism and so an issue to be critically evaluated, we shouldn’t be surprised (as Dr. Rota pointed out) that it may not be initially as obvious in the historical record, especially if people at the time understood what’s been commonly referred to as The Jewish Roots of The Papacy (that is, how a 1st century Jewish audience would have known in a much more obvious way than we do what “giving the keys” and “binding and loosing” meant in terms of Church structure and authority) if it wasn’t mentioned as much as the resurrection among the earliest Christian writings, because while distinctive of the Catholic Church, it’s still not Christ rising from the dead. Obviously, the former is going to command considerably more attention than issues of Church hierarchy and/or authority, because that is the more fundamental – and radically transformative – event.
Next issue. Wall’s argument would at most provide an undercutting rather than rebutting defeater. Notice that Walls is not providing evidence of another sort of historical Church structure – that is, of people pointing to some otherwise egalitarian council of elders, or what have you – rather, his appeal to authority is trying to argue that since, say, Ignatius doesn’t mention a monarchical Bishop in Rome, probably there wasn’t a monarchical Bishop in Rome. Before I get to what I believe is wrong with that inference, consider this. Even if the argument goes through, it might still be the case there was a monarchical bishop in Rome, because it’s not as if we have evidence for anything other than a hierarchical Church structure, especially since Ignatius is “obsessed,” as Walls puts it, with bishops. Again, Wall’s argument is simply aimed at lessening a Catholic’s justification for believing there was a 1st century monarchical bishop of Rome, but that doesn’t mean the Papacy is false. Compare: Imagine a skeptic undercuts some of the historical support for the Resurrection, whatever that may be (empty tomb, let’s imagine). That is different, however, than finding contrary evidence which provides weight against the resurrection – say, the discovery of the bones of Jesus, or documents showing evidence of some grand conspiracy, or what have you. The first is undercutting, lessening the evidence for a particular position, the second rebutting, showing why a particular position is (at least probably) false because a mutually exclusive position is historically better attested. Undercutting defeaters remove evidential support; rebutting defeaters give evidence to the contrary. Walls argument is the former, not the latter, and thereby a weaker argument than one might initially suppose.
Fortunately, we need not and should not accept Wall’s argument, either way. As mentioned in our exchange, there are relevant differences about St. Ignatius letter to Rome that should alleviate our expectations of him mentioning a bishop in the first place. This is important, because since Walls’ argument hinges upon an argument form silence (through an appeal to authority), the force of such argumentation depends upon how much of an expectation we have of whether somebody would mention something in the first place. Even if that expectation is strong, arguments from silence are still notoriously weak, but if such an expectation is not strong, or if there is no expectation at all, arguments from silence become almost entirely worthless.
So, let us now turn to Ignatius. Because it shocks me that anybody could engage with the Saint commonly known as “the doctor of unity” for his utter insistence on the unity of Christians with the hierarchy of the Church, and not come away convinced of his inherent Catholicity.
Here are just a few selections from his various letters to illustrate the point (all of which can be found here):
“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. […] Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. […] Whatsoever [the bishop] shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.”
“Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.”
“It is therefore befitting that you should in every way glorify Jesus Christ, who has glorified you, that by a unanimous obedience you may be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment, and may all speak the same thing concerning the same thing, 1 Corinthians 1:10 and that, being subject to the bishop and the presbytery, you may in all respects be sanctified.”
“Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.”
“Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, Matthew 24:45 as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that you all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do you hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth.”
“It is becoming, therefore, that ye also should be obedient to your bishop, and contradict him in nothing; for it is a fearful thing to contradict any such person. For no one does [by such conduct] deceive him that is visible, but does [in reality] seek to mock Him that is invisible, who, however, cannot be mocked by any one. And every such act has respect not to man, but to God.”
“Some indeed give one the title of bishop, but do all things without him. Now such persons seem to me to be not possessed of a good conscience, seeing they are not steadfastly gathered together according to the commandment.”
“Do not err, my brethren. James 1:16 Those that corrupt families shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 If, then, those who do this as respects the flesh have suffered death, how much more shall this be the case with any one who corrupts by wicked doctrine the faith of God, for which Jesus Christ was crucified! Such an one becoming defiled [in this way], shall go away into everlasting fire, and so shall every one that hearkens unto him.” (this one for universalists who say there is no early evidence of the doctrine hell…)
“…which I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, who is our eternal and enduring joy, especially if [men] are in unity with the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom He has established in security, after His own will, and by His Holy Spirit.”
“Wherefore, as children of light and truth, flee from division and wicked doctrines; but where the shepherd is, there follow as sheep. For there are many wolves that appear worthy of credit, who, by means of a pernicious pleasure, carry captive 2 Timothy 3:6 those that are running towards God; but in your unity they shall have no place.”
“Keep yourselves from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, because they are not the planting of the Father. Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.].”
And not only do we find talk about bishops, but also the Eucharist and a dedication to the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ…
“Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For th..ere is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth ] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God.”
Notice something that is often overlooked: the language of one altar. What Protestant denomination would accept? Altar implies SACRIFICE, and it is Catholics (not Protestants) who maintain that the highest worship of God involves re-partaking in the eternal sacrifice of Christ on the cross – i.e. the holy mass.
Two other passages on the Eucharist…
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible”
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes”
OK, then, so Ignatius seems not only Catholic, but perhaps what many people would consider to be “obnoxiously” Catholic – in other words, he’s orthodox.
Finally, let’s get onto his letter to the Roman Church. Notice how he begins with heaps of praise…
“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.”
Right away, one majorly relevant difference applying to St. Ignatius letter to the Romans is he is not offering instructions/corrections/etc but rather pleading for Rome not to interfere with his impending martyrdom. The letter is significantly different in both content and tone than his other communications.
Toward the end Ignatius requests prayers for the Antioch since he (as their shepherd/Bishop) will soon become food for the wild beasts.
“Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it]. But as for me, I am ashamed to be counted one of them; for indeed I am not worthy, as being the very last of them, and one born out of due time. 1 Corinthians 15:8-9 But I have obtained mercy to be somebody, if I shall attain to God. My spirit salutes you, and the love of the Churches that have received me in the name of Jesus Christ, and not as a mere passer-by. For even those Churches which were not near to me in the way, I mean according to the flesh, have gone before me, city by city, [to meet me.]”
It is a beautiful letter and striking and bespeaks of his radical love for Christ. Either way, my argument is the same as it was before: It is quite unbelievable to assume St. Ignatius would hold the Church of Rome in such high esteem if such a Church does not even meet his criteria for being a Church in the first place. Contrary to Walls’ appeal to authority, given what we already know about St. Ignatius and his commitment to unity with Church hierarchy, it’s borderline farcical to assume he’d consider the Church of Rome “worthy of all praise,” ”worthy of being deemed holy,” and all the rest, if that Church itself wasn’t in unity with Church hierarchy. Not only does Walls’ argument from silence fail, but the inference goes the other way around, if anything. The fact Ignatius considers Rome a Church at all – and so preeminent a Church, at that – gives strong reason to suspect there was a bishop at Rome, even if that bishop isn’t mentioned. (But notice Ignatius does mention bishops in his letter – twice, in referring to himself! Thus, he’s assuming his audience understands the authoritative structure of the Church and why prayers are needed at Antioch since Ignatius’s impending martyrdom will leave them temporarily without a shepherding bishop.)
Of course, once we’ve seen what’s wrong with Walls’ argument, we should also consider all the other evidence of a monarchical Bishop in Rome – including Clement (who I mentioned in our exchange). Of course, one might respond that Clement doesn’t explicitly call himself the Pope, either (presenting another argument from silence), but Joe Heschmeyer has responded to this in his own rebuttal to Walls.
“… that since Clement doesn’t explicitly say that he’s the Bishop of Rome in his letter dating to c. 96 AD, therefore he wasn’t, and there must have been a plurality of bishops. To hold to this position, you have to ignore the fact that several other (seemingly independent) ancient sources all tell us that Clement was the Bishop of Rome: St. Irenaeus says so in c. 180, Tertullian treats it as well known history in c. 200, Eusebius (265-339) talks about it in his discussion of the history of the popes in Book III of Church History, and St. Jerome mentions it in his biographical sketch of the life of Clement. But you also have to ignore a bigger question: given that the Apostle John is still alive in 96 AD, why are the Corinthians writing to Rome to settle an internal church dispute? If Clement is the pope, the Corinthians’ decision makes sense. But if he’s not, they’re just writing to a slightly-bigger and slightly-less ancient local church on the other side of the Empire instead of to an Apostle, and the decision is baffling.”
In other words, the earliest and best evidence we have either supports (directly or indirectly) or is compatible with the hypothesis of a monarchical bishop of Rome, and we have no early direct evidence against it. If we did, surely Walls would have presented it. Thus, we can stand confidently with Newman in his assessment that to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.
Related Resources