FROM THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT TO A CREDENTIAL CHALLENGE: A TRAGICOMIC TALE

The argument is placed on the table, waiting to be examined; instead, the critic puts the man who placed it there on trial. A tragedy most comical! 

Prologue: When the Argument Disappears

In my article on the Anglican Eucharist I placed a theological question on the table:

What does the Anglican Eucharist mean?
What is the Real Presence?
Is the Eucharist a true Sacrifice?
What kind of priesthood is required to offer that Sacrifice?
Does the Anglican Ordinal signify and confer that priesthood?
And what are we to make of Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae?

A serious discussion ought to begin there.

But a respondent hiding under anonymity did none of that. Rather he wrote: 

“The question applies first to Ojeka himself: without valid Catholic orders and demonstrable apostolic mission through Peter, he possesses neither the Catholic sacrificial priesthood nor authority to lecture Anglicans about theirs. The collar cannot supply what the Church never conferred.

A Roman collar cannot confer Catholic priesthood-and a counterfeit hierarchy cannot transmit the apostolic mission it never possessed, even to condemn the Anglicans.”

Basically saying:

“What authority have you to discuss this? Your orders are invalid. Your hierarchy is counterfeit. Your collar proves nothing.”

And there you have it.

The theological argument has quietly left the room.

What remains is a credential challenge.

The argument is placed on the table, waiting to be examined; instead, the critic puts the man who placed it there on trial. A tragedy most comical! 

1. THE ARTICLE ASKED A THEOLOGICAL QUESTION

An attentive reader will notice that the article did not ask:

“Do you like Father Ojeka?”

Nor:

“Do you recognize Father Ojeka’s ecclesiastical credentials?”

Nor:

“Does a Roman collar confer priesthood?”

The article dealt with the Anglican Eucharist and the Catholic theology of the priesthood.

Its questions are objective and perfectly disinterested:

• What does Anglicanism mean by the Real Presence?
• Does it profess Transubstantiation?
• Does it profess the Eucharist as the true Sacrifice of Christ?
• What is the nature of the Catholic priesthood?
• Is the Anglican minister ordained to offer that Sacrifice?
• What does the Anglican Ordinal actually signify?
• How does the Anglican position stand in relation to Apostolicae Curae?

These questions do not become meaningless because the person asking them has enemies.

They do not become false because the author is controversial.

And they certainly do not become false because somebody disputes his credentials.

Arguments are answered with arguments. Or has the rule changed? CAN it be changed? 

2. BUT THE COMMENTER CHANGED THE SUBJECT

What did the commenter actually do?

He wrote:

“A Roman collar cannot confer Catholic priesthood…”

But who claimed that it could? 

Nobody.

The article was not arguing:

“I wear a Roman collar; therefore I am a priest.”

That would indeed be absurd.

The collar is irrelevant.

The commenter then spoke of:

“a counterfeit hierarchy”

and claimed that such a hierarchy could not transmit the apostolic mission.

But again:

Where is the argument?

• What precisely is meant by “counterfeit”?
• What theological principle is being invoked?
• What is meant by “apostolic mission”?
• What distinction is being made between Orders, jurisdiction, office, and canonical mission?

Nothing is demonstrated.

A conclusion is simply announced.

That is not theology.

That is rhetoric wearing theological clothing.

3. THEN CAME THE CREDENTIAL CHALLENGE

The second comment makes the change of subject even clearer:

“The question applies first to Ojeka himself…”

There it is.

The question has been changed.

The article asks:

Are the Anglican Orders valid, and what follows from Catholic teaching concerning the Eucharist and priesthood?

The commenter asks:

Who is Ojeka to discuss this?

Those are not the same question.

Suppose, for argument’s sake, that every accusation against me is true.

Would that prove that Anglican Orders are valid?

No.

Would it prove that Anglicanism teaches Transubstantiation?

No.

Would it prove that the Anglican Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice in the Catholic sense?

No.

Would it prove that the Anglican Ordinal confers the Catholic sacrificial priesthood?

No.

Would it prove that Leo XIII was wrong?

No.

Not one of those conclusions follows.

The entire theological argument remains standing until somebody actually addresses it.

4. “YOUR ORDERS ARE INVALID” IS NOT A REFUTATION

There is a remarkably simple test for serious criticism:

What proposition of the article are you denying?

Quote it.

Identify it.

Refute it.

For example:

“The article says X. That is false because the Anglican Articles teach Y.”

Or:

“The article misrepresents Apostolicae Curae. Leo XIII actually argues Z.”

Or:

“The inference from the Eucharistic Sacrifice to the sacrificial priesthood does not follow because…”

Or:

“The Anglican Ordinal does signify the sacrificial priesthood in the following passages…”

That would be a critique.

But:

“Your orders are invalid.”

is not a refutation of the argument concerning Anglican Orders.

It is merely another assertion.

And the man who demands evidence from his opponent should not imagine that his own assertions are exempt from evidence.

5. THE COLLAR IS A RED HERRING

The repeated reference to a “Roman collar” is almost comical.

Nobody serious in Catholic theology believes that a collar confers Holy Orders.

A collar is clothing.

The sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred by the proper sacramental rite.

So why introduce the collar?

Because it is easier to mock a piece of clothing than to answer a theological argument.

That is the rhetorical trick.

Reduce the opponent’s position to something he never claimed.

Then demolish the caricature.

Congratulations!

You have defeated an argument that nobody made. What an achievement… 

6. THE REAL QUESTION IS STILL WAITING

After all the accusations, one inconvenient question remains:

What about the Anglican Ordinal?

That is where a serious discussion has to go.

• What does the rite signify?
• What does it intend to confer?
• What does it say about the priesthood?
• What does it say about sacrifice?
• How does its form correspond to the Catholic understanding of the priesthood?
• And how does all this relate to the judgment of Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae?

These questions cannot be frightened away by calling someone a “counterfeit priest.”

They remain.

They demand answers.

7. THE BURDEN OF A SERIOUS CRITIC

If you want to overthrow an argument, overthrow it.

Do not merely discredit its author.

A serious critic should therefore be able to produce:

A text.
 A doctrine.
 A distinction.
 A historical fact.
 A theological principle.
 A contradiction.
 A demonstrated error.

Something!

Anything along that line!

But not merely:

“You have no authority.”

Because even if a speaker’s authority is disputed, the proposition itself still has to be examined.

Truth does not become false because an unworthy man says it.

And error does not become truth because a credentialed man says it.

Catholic theology has never operated on the principle:

“Check the collar before checking the argument.”

8. ANONYMITY DOES NOT STRENGTHEN AN ARGUMENT

There is another curious feature here.

The criticism comes from behind a veil of anonymity.

Anonymity, by itself, does not make a statement false. There are legitimate circumstances in which a person may reasonably conceal his identity.

But when anonymity is combined with personal accusations, sweeping denunciations, and refusal to engage the substance, it produces a particularly unattractive form of polemic.

The anonymous critic can throw accusations without having to establish his own credentials.

He can declare another man’s hierarchy “counterfeit” without explaining his own theological position.

He can pronounce judgment while remaining safely outside the very scrutiny he demands of his opponent.

That is not intellectual courage.

At its worst, it becomes the coward’s advantage:

throw the stone, hide the hand, and declare victory.

A Catholic disputant should aspire to something higher.

If you have an argument, put the argument on the table.

If you have evidence, show the evidence.

If you have a theological principle, state the principle.

If you believe someone is wrong, show where he is wrong.

9. THE TRAGICOMIC SWITCH

And so the whole episode may be summarized rather neatly.

The article:

“Here is an argument about Anglican Eucharistic theology, the sacrificial priesthood, the Anglican Ordinal, and Apostolicae Curae.”

The anonymous commenter:

“But who are you?”

The article:

“Here are the theological questions.”

The anonymous commenter:

“Your collar cannot confer priesthood.”

The article:

“Please address the argument.”

The anonymous commenter:

“Your hierarchy is counterfeit.”

The article:

“Which proposition do you dispute?”

The anonymous commenter:

“You have no authority to lecture Anglicans.”

And there we have the tragedy.

And the comedy.

The critic never got around to criticizing the article.

10. THE RULE OF HONEST CONTROVERSY

There is a very old and very Catholic principle behind all this:

Distinguish the person from the proposition.

The person may be questioned.

His credentials may be investigated.

His ecclesiastical status may be disputed.

His theology may be examined.

But none of these substitutes for demonstrating that a particular proposition is false.

The proper Catholic method is not:

“Who said it?”

and then stop.

It is:

“What exactly was said? Is it true? What does the Church teach? What do the sources say? What follows from them?”

That is how theological controversy becomes useful.

That is how error is exposed.

That is how truth is defended.

CONCLUSION: ANSWER THE ARGUMENT

So, to our anonymous critic:

You have raised questions about the author’s orders.

Very well.

Those questions can be discussed separately, with the relevant theology of Orders, apostolic succession, jurisdiction, and mission.

But that is not a critique of the article.

The article asked a question about Anglican Eucharistic doctrine and Anglican Orders.

• You have not shown that its account of Anglicanism is false.
• You have not refuted its treatment of the Real Presence.
• You have not disproved its distinction between Real Presence and Transubstantiation.
• You have not refuted its account of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
• You have not demonstrated that Anglican priesthood possesses the Catholic sacrificial character.
• You have not examined the Anglican Ordinal.
• You have not refuted Leo XIII or the appeal to his relevance to the question.
• You have not identified a single proposition in the article and demonstrated its falsity.

You have simply attacked the author.

That may be polemics. It may be personal criticism. It may even be an invitation to another debate.

But it is not a critique of the article.

So let us return to the question that was actually asked:

Not “Who is the author?”

But “Where is the argument wrong?”

Quote it.

Identify it.

Refute it.

And then we shall have a theological discussion.

Think on it!  AMDG.