My friend Tyler Vela posted on facebook something a question to Catholics on facebook about laity being able to read the Bible. Peter D. Williams arrived to argue they should and that broke out into a conversation about the authority of the Catholic Church. I’ll also provide a link that gives a cliff notes on some of the older Catholic teachings about the laity.

http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2018/06/15/blackjack-catholicism/

Peter Williams just appears to be giving the same Catholic “apologetic” that is unconvincing from Protestant and Biblical scholars perspectives. Catholicism contains many contradictions and Tyler chose the most obvious one. That being salvation outside of the Church. If Williams held to a pre-Vatican 2 theology, then Williams would maintain a different theology than he does today. But from my understanding it really isn’t controversial that Catholics flipped the script:

We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Unam Sanctam

There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved. (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. Council of Florence (1442).

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc. Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors.

841 “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” Catechism of Catholic Church.

3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. NOSTRA AETATE, Vatican II.

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. Lumen Gentium 16.

I wonder how many quotes from Church Fathers could Peter Williams scrouge up to defend the idea people can be saved without faith in the Gospel in the Early Church. Was the Early Church ignorant of such doctrine about salvation back then? It is not like little old protestants have the right to interpret any of the Church Fathers either.

“The Canon is the Church’s authoritative *recognition* of the Tradition of what is authentic Holy Scripture (a necessary and essential truth of the Faith which, as I have pointed out ad infinitum before, cannot be derived from Holy Scripture alone, a fact which completely disproves Sola Scriptura). “

Peter Williams only has the Canon argument. His worldview is filled with holes and reduces to skepticism but he has his foot dug in the epistemological dirt on the Canon issue. I will now try to critique this argument and vindicate my convictions.

1. This argument is self-refuting. Catholicism has no infallibly declared list of infallible councils. Thus given his method of truth Catholicism fails.

2. Catholics wouldn’t present their position as the Church picking books from a hat. Rather they might appeal that the Church looked at the historical evidence and from that determined the books of the Bible. If that is the case, then Protestants can simply play that game as well. Protestants can look at the historical evidence and weigh their options. The Christian has the ability to look at undesigned coincidences, internal evidence, external evidence, Church histories canons, and non-inferential knowledge of the canon.

3. The argument is a vicious infinite regress. If a list was ever provided, then the objector will merely ask how they know the infallible canon list for all the infallible canons. It would be valid for the Protestant to demand infinite declarations of infallible Papal statements for the proof of the magisterium.

4. The Church did receive the NT canon and the Jews received the OT. The Church being guided to receive the books leads to an underdetermination problem. As one Protestant apologist pointed out:

“So even assuming, for discussion purposes, that God supernaturally guided the ancient church to give Christians the right Bible, this carries no presumption that God supernaturally guides the church in other respects, or that God continuously guides the church.”

5. It is unconvincing to believe the Church until Trent was unwarranted in believing that the books of the Bible were inspired and authoritative. It is also difficult for Catholics to maintain their position in the light of the different canon list that have existed throughout Church history.

6. Catholics maintain a form of Methodism. This entails that Catholics maintain the way we demarcate non-divine content from divine content is the Magisterium. The issue of Methodism is that you don’t know anything about any particular case of divine revelation. This entails Catholics pick a method of knowing without knowing anything about any particular case of divine revelation. How can Williams know what a good method for demarcating revelation is from non-revelation without already possessing particular examples of divine revelation? Thus Williams can only present an arbitrary method for demarcating the two without knowing whether that particular method is purely a fiction of his own mind.

These are sufficient reasons to reject the Catholics argument from the Canon and hopefully enough to put that terrible argument away.