Now, off the bat I was not entirely sure what Daniel’s point was. I saw four possible options:
–There is no point, just a random observation.
–The point is that Protestants should submit to the Pope,* just as wives should submit to their husbands.
–The point is that wives should not submit to their husbands, just as Protestants should not submit to the Pope.
–Some other point which I have not thought of.
Daniel does well to note that a similarity does not constitute an argument.
For the idea that “Protestants must submit to the Pope, just as wives must submit to their husbands” to become a weighty argument, one must establish how and why wives and Protestants are like things, and how and why the Pope and husbands are like things.
I might just as well say “Bakers must submit to Car Salesmen, just as wives must to submit to husbands” or “Dogs must submit to zebras, just as wives must submit to husbands.”
Naturally, either of those are nonsensical, as is the first if we do not establish somehow that Protestants are like wives and the Pope is like husbands.
Now, I am no expert on Popes and Protestants, but I don’t see a way in which they are like things to husbands and wives that is accepted by both Roman Catholics and Protestants.
Maybe I’m just missing it.
Some time in Daniel’s conversion from a “Bible church ” to Roman Catholicism, he became convinced that the Pope was a God-ordained position of authority. Thus, when he reads of how wives must submit to the God-ordained authority of their husbands, it reminds him of his submission to the Pope (and bishops, etc.)
But an argument only has value if the one to whom you are making it accepts its priors.
Thus, an argument that Protestants must submit to the Pope ought to be aimed at convincing Protestants–and its priors must therefore be those accepted by Protestants.
The Protestant will say that the Bible commands wives to submit to husbands, and does not command Protestants to submit to the Pope. Therefore, he will not accept the prior that Protestants are like wives and the Pope is like husbands.
For a Roman Catholic to convince a Protestant, he must use the arguments that are convincing to Protestants, not those that are convincing to Roman Catholics.
Likewise, for a Protestant to convince a Roman Catholic, he must use the arguments that are convincing to Roman Catholics, not those that are convincing to Protestants.
And for either to do this, he must understand the other’s theology
*Roman, not Coptic or Chalcedonian