The "tu quoque" objection

Here's a little test for the resident apologists. How do you respond to the tu quoque objection? No fair "Googling".


I. The authority argument

In various places I have argued previously that without apostolic succession, creeds and confessions have no actual authority.1 They have no actual authority apart from apostolic succession because without apostolic succession the only available basis for a creed or confession’s authority is the individual’s agreement with the interpretation of Scripture found in that creed or confession. Each person picks the confession of faith that most closely represents his own interpretation of Scripture. If his interpretation of Scripture happens to change, he is not bound by his prior choice of confession; rather, he simply picks a different confession that more closely matches his present interpretation. I have described this as painting one’s magisterial target around one’s interpretive arrow, i.e. the practice of choosing and grounding magisterial authority based on its agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture.2

But an important principle regarding authority is this: “When I submit (only when I agree), the one to whom I submit is me.” In other words, agreement with oneself cannot be the basis for authority over oneself. Therefore a creed or confession’s agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture cannot be the basis for its authority.3 And this is why without apostolic succession, creeds or confessions have no actual authority. That is a simple overview of the authority argument.4

II. The tu quoque objection

The primary objection to this argument is the tu quoque [lit. you too] objection, namely, that the person who becomes Catholic upon determining that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded is doing so because the Catholic Church most closely conforms to his own interpretation of Scripture, history and tradition. In other words, in choosing to become Catholic, he has simply chosen the ‘denomination’ that best conforms to his own interpretation of Scripture, tradition and history. Hence if Protestant confessions have no authority over the individual Protestant because Protestants select them on the basis of their conformity to their own interpretation of Scripture, then neither does the Catholic Church have any authority over the person who becomes Catholic, because Catholics select the Catholic Church on the basis of its agreement with their own interpretation of Scripture, history, and tradition. But if choosing the Catholic Church on the basis of one’s own interpretation of Scripture, history, and tradition does not undermine the authority of the Catholic Church, then neither does choosing a Protestant confession on the basis of one’s own interpretation of Scripture undermine that Protestant confession’s authority. In other words, just as the person becoming Catholic claims to have discovered that those in the magisterium of the Catholic Church are the successors of the Apostles, and thereby bearing divine authority, so the person adopting a Protestant confession believes he has discovered that this particular confession is in agreement with Scripture, and thus that this confession derives its authority from Scripture. But if picking a confession on the basis of its agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture entails that this confession has no authority over oneself, then picking the Catholic Church on the basis of its agreement with one’s own interpretation of history, tradition and Scripture entails that the Catholic Church has no authority over oneself. In short, the conclusion of the tu quoque objection is that either the Catholic Church likewise has no authority, or the Protestant confessions can truly have authority.

This is only the case If "Sola Scriptura" has been established as Fact. So the first debate must be Sola Scriptura.

As to one adhering to that which most conforms to ones own critique, this would mean that Truth is not objective and therefore Truth cannot be known with certainty, which in turn implies that God either has witheld the truth, doesn't wish the truth to be known or God is not Truth. The three possibilities are not in conformity with anyone's reading of scripture no matter how much to their own liking they wish it to be.

As truth in fact can be known then the obligation is to conform to the truth despite ones own leanings. If truth is always subjective or individual then there really is no such thing as truth at all. Therefore human reasoning would be a mere product of it's own making and that any influence (or law) that doesn't originate from the individual but is external and not dependant on any individual (whether any particular individulal existed or not) would have no ability to destroy this law which would still remain.

Atheism is the rejection of any such external authority existing in it's own right, while the oppsite (Catholicism) is the fullest recognition of supreme authority whether that authority conforms with what one would wish it to be or not. So at the end of the day,

..that the person who becomes Catholic upon determining that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded is doing so because the Catholic Church most closely conforms to his own interpretation of Scripture, history and tradition. In other words, in choosing to become Catholic, he has simply chosen the ‘denomination’ that best conforms to his own interpretation of Scripture, tradition and history...

Can't be true of Catholicism.

I think that basically one may initially be drawn to the Church for wrong reasons or because the Catholic Church's interpretation of the Bible fits his own. Some people are even drawn to the Church at first via aesthetics. But later on, after he converts, or even while he is in preparation to convert, through study he will learn the truth. I think this is basically evidence of God working with the person where he is at.


Another point is the person described above (in RJ's post) is assuming that it is self-evident which books even belong in the Bible. We wouldn't even know which books belong in the Bible were it not for the Catholic Church.

Perhaps this is a good case to bring back the abjuration of heresies and false religions that used to be required of converts. That way, it would be clear to them which of their former ideas were false.

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/05/the-tu-quoque/

"So why is discovering the Catholic Church through the study of history, Scripture and tradition not equivalent to discovering a confession that agrees with one’s own interpretation of Scripture, and how does the difference explain why the Catholic Church so discovered can remain authoritative while the Protestant confession cannot? The difference lies fundamentally neither in the discovery process nor in the evidence by which the discovery is made, even though those may be different. The difference lies fundamentally in the nature of that which is discovered.

B. The basis for the difference between the authority of Scripture and Protestant confessions

Consider why, for the Protestant, Scripture has more authority than any Protestant confession. Protestants and Catholics agree that “God is the author of Sacred Scripture. The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the..."