Monday, February 27, 2012
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Nuts & Bolts: In the Lion's Den
Scenario:
You’ve been talking with Bob, a fellow worker at the office, for weeks about the faith. You can see you’ve made headway in presenting him your biblical case for Catholicism. So you decide to invite him to an apologetics Bible study you have at your parish.
He agrees to come on one condition: You must first come to a Bible study at his “non-denominational” assembly for four weeks. Then he will come to your meeting for four weeks.
Immediately, you jump at the chance. You’re fired up! The Lord has given you an open door for evangelism.
Upon arrival at Bob’s assembly, “Church of the Open Door,” Bob takes you to a room filled with about forty-five congenial people with Bibles in hand. After drinking punch, eating a few cookies, and talking small talk for a few moments, the leader of the group, Robert, asks everyone to find a seat so the Bible study can begin.
After a short prayer, Robert says the topic of study over the next four weeks will be salvation. But first, he says, “We must begin with the assumption that all present believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. And also that Sacred Scripture is the regula fidei or sole rule of faith for all believers. In other words, the doctrine of sola scriptura.”
You immediately raise your hand with a question. “Do you mind if I ask why you believe this seemingly foundational doctrine? I don’t believe sola scriptura to be true — in fact, I don’t believe that the Bible itself teaches such a doctrine at all.”
You hear a few subdued gasps and feel the eyes of all turn to you, as Robert quickly responds: “The Bible very plainly teaches sola scriptura in 2 Timothy 3:16: ‘All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.’ The Bible can’t make it any more plain than that!” Robert declares.
You respond to Robert with four reasons why his stated position, sola scriptura, is untenable: It is unreasonable, unhistorical, unbiblical, and unworkable.
Step One: Sola Scriptura is unreasonable.
As briefly as possible, you quickly point out that Robert’s reasoning is circular, and therefore fallacious: “You cannot prove the inspiration of a text from the text itself. The Book of Mormon, the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, the Muslim Quran, and other books claim divine inspiration. This doesn’t make them inspired. The question remains, how do we know the Scriptures are inspired and canonical using the principle of sola scriptura?”
Robert immediately asks if you are Catholic. (He could tell by your critiques of sola scriptura). When you answer in the affirmative, Robert responds, “I believe the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth as Jesus said in John 16:13. The Holy Spirit guided the early Christians and helped them to gather the canon of Scripture and declare it to be the inspired Word of God. God would not leave us without His Word to guide us.”
You respond, “The Scripture you quoted from John 16:13 has nothing to do with sola scriptura. While I agree with you that the Holy Spirit guided the early Christians to canonize the Scriptures, the question is whether they used sola scriptura as their guiding principle. The answer is no.
“They needed Tradition outside of Scripture as their criterion for the canon. This criterion is not found in Scripture itself. They needed Tradition to authenticate the books in question. And they also needed the Church in council to give an authoritative decree on the whole matter.
“All of that aside, let’s look at the text you quoted. I ask you, what if I made a similar claim to demonstrate to you any of our Catholic dogmas? Imagine that you asked me why I believe Mary to be the Mother of God, and I responded, ‘We believe the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth and guided the early Christians to declare this truth.’ Would you believe me on this basis? No!
“But all this begs my original question. Not only is the text you used unacceptable from a perspective of sola scriptura; it’s also circular reasoning to claim the Scripture as your authority for claiming the inspiration of Scripture.”
Robert seems to be intrigued with this dialogue, as are the rest of those gathered. Robert says, “How do you know the Scriptures are inspired? Your reasoning is just as circular: You say the Church is infallible because the inspired Scriptures say so, and then claim the Scriptures are inspired and infallible because the Church says so!”
“That’s a very good question,” you reply. “However, the Catholic Church’s position on inspiration is not circular. We begin with the Bible as an historical document, not as an inspired one. As any reputable historian will tell you, the New Testament is the most accurate and verifiable historical document in all of ancient history. To deny the historical reliability of the New Testament would be to deny the reliability of all ancient history.
“Nevertheless, we cannot deduce from this that they are inspired. There are many accurate historical documents that are not inspired. However, the Scriptures do give us accurate historical information whether we hold to their inspiration or not.
“It is on this basis that we can say it is an historical fact that Jesus lived, died, and was reported to be resurrected from the dead by over five hundred eyewitnesses. This is the historical record. Many of these eyewitnesses went to their deaths testifying to the veracity of what Christ had done (see Lk 1:1-4, Jn 21:18-19, 24-25, Acts 1:1-11, 1 Cor 15:1-8). Further, this testimony of the Bible is backed up by hundreds of works by early Christians and historians, some of whom were not Christian — such as Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Josephus.
“Now, what do we find when we examine the Scriptures as historical documents? The Scriptures record Jesus establishing a Church, not a book, to be the foundation of the Christian faith (see Mt 16:15-18, 18:15-18, Eph 2:20, 3:10,20-21,4:11-15, 1 Tim 3:15, Heb 13:7,17, and others). He said of His Church: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects Him who sent me” (Lk 10:16).
“The many books that comprise what we call the Bible never tell us certain crucial truths: the fact that they are inspired, or who can and cannot be the human author of them, or who authored many of them, or what is the canon of Scripture, just to name a few. But what is very clear is that Jesus established a kingdom with a hierarchy and authority to speak for Him (see Lk 20:29-32, Mt 10:40, 28:18-20). It was members of this kingdom, the Church, that would write the Scripture, preserve the Scripture, and eventually canonize the Scripture.
“The Scriptures cannot write or canonize themselves. To put it simply, reason clearly rejects sola scriptura as a self-refuting principle, because we cannot determine what the scriptura is using the principle of sola scriptura.”
Step Two: Sola Scriptura is unhistorical.
“If I may, I would like to concretize my point by making an argument from history. Let’s say you were living in the mid-fourth century before there was a recognized canon of Scripture. As I’m sure you know, the first time a formal canon was arranged and recognized by any council of the Church was in A.D. 382 at a synod in Rome called by Pope Damasus I.
“Let’s say you were to read The Instructor by Saint Clement of Alexandria (written about 202). In book II, chapter 3, he quotes Baruch 3:16-19 and calls it ‘Divine Scripture.’”
After you briefly explain, for those who may not know it, that Baruch is one of the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament accepted by Catholics, but rejected by Protestants, you note: “Saint Clement was the head of the famous catechetical school in Alexandria and one of the greatest theologians of the second and third centuries. Now I could cite scores of examples of other early Christians referring to the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, but for the sake of brevity I will refer just to this one.
“Let’s say you then read a book by the greatest historian of the fourth century, Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea. In his classic Ecclesiastical History (written around 330), book III, chapters 3 and 25, he records the canon of Scripture as understood in the mid-fourth century. He claims that James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John are among ‘the disputed writings.’ He notes that Hebrews and Revelation are rejected altogether by many.
“My question is this: Many of the early Christians disagreed over which books were inspired. So where do you go to get a definitive answer about the canon of Scripture if you use the principle of sola scriptura?”
Robert responds: “You make some very interesting points that I will have to think about. However, I have to disagree with you when you say the Scriptures do not claim to be inspired and the sole rule of faith. I’ve already quoted 2 Timothy 3:16 to you. In addition, over and over in Scripture we clearly find our Lord quoting the Old Testament authoritatively, as He does in Matthew 4:4-11. When Jesus was tempted by the Devil, his response was: ‘It is written’ — three times in a matter of seven verses. Jesus clearly uses sola scriptura as his guiding principle or regula fidei.”
This leads you into your third point.
Step Three: Sola Scriptura is unbiblical.
“Let’s back up,” you say, “to the original verse Robert used to prove his case, 2 Timothy 3:16. (You now find yourself addressing the entire Bible study group, not just Robert!) The text itself does not assert what Robert claimed. It does not claim the inspiration of the New Testament. Nor does it claim to be the sole rule of faith for Christians. Let’s look at the context of the passage.
“Robert, let’s read aloud verses 14-15, which precede 2 Timothy 3:16.” (You can’t help but notice that you are slowly taking over this Bible study!) Robert then reads aloud: “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (emphasis added).
“In context, this passage does not refer to the New Testament at all. None of the New Testament books had been written when Saint Timothy was a child! Further, how does this text tell us whether or not the book of Revelation is an authentic book of the New Testament, since it had not even been written at that point?”
Robert responds: “You keep coming back to the canon and you make an interesting point. As I said, I will have to think more about that, but you cannot escape the unique status Scripture is given in the Bible. Only Scripture is referred to as inspired by God. Therefore, only Scripture can be said to be infallible. And the text says Scripture is all we need to equip us. We certainly do not need any Catholic traditions. In fact, Jesus condemned the use of tradition in Matthew 15:1-6.”
“With all due respect,” you reply, “I have to disagree with you. You’ve made three key mistakes I think we can clear up. First, while I agree with you that only Scripture is referred to as inspired (Greek theopneustos), that does not mean the infallible Word of God is limited to Scripture. The text does not say that!
“Inspiration is a technical term used to describe the unique way in which God instrumentally moved the human authors of Scripture to write in such a way that we can say God is the primary author of Scripture. However, this is not the only way in which God communicates His infallible Word. For example, in Deuteronomy 18:20-22 we are told that if a prophet speaks a word that does not come to pass, he is a false prophet and is put to death.
“Why? Because the spoken word of a true prophet is infallible. A true prophet does not hit and miss. And by the way: You don’t have to wait until it’s written down before it becomes infallible!
“Second, we agree that Jesus quoted Scripture and condemned some traditions. But He did not refer to Scripture alone as His authority, and He did not condemn all tradition. When Jesus condemned a certain tradition of the Pharisees in Matthew 15:9, He qualified exactly what kind of tradition it was. Jesus condemned the traditions of men, not all tradition.
“In fact, Jesus refers to an oral tradition in Matthew 23:2-3: ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.’ Jesus both refers to this oral tradition about ‘the chair of Moses’ Himself, and commands the apostles to believe and obey it.”
“St. Paul also mentions oral Tradition as having the same authority as written Tradition in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 and 2:15. The last of these texts says: ‘So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.’ Even further, Jesus not only referred to Scripture and Tradition, but He also gave us teachings on His own authority as well when He repeatedly said, ‘You have heard it said . . . but I say unto you . . .’ (Mt 5:21-44).
“Now for my third point: Even if we granted that 2 Timothy 3:16 was talking about all of Scripture, it never claims Scripture is the sole rule of faith. A rule of faith, but not the sole rule of faith. Let me explain what I mean.
“In James 1:4 we read: ‘And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.’ If we apply the same principle of exegesis to this text that you applied to 2 Timothy 3:16, we would have to say that all we need is steadfastness to be perfected. We don’t need faith, hope, charity, the Scriptures, the Church, or anything else.”
Robert immediately says, “That is manifestly absurd!”
“Of course it is,” you reply. “Can you see how I would say it is just as weak to claim that 2 Timothy 3:16 is saying Scripture is all we need because it says Scripture serves believers so that they may be ‘complete, equipped for every good work’?”
Step Four: Sola Scriptura is unworkable.
Realizing you have monopolized the time at this Bible study, and looking for a graceful exit, you conclude your remarks. “If I could leave you with one last biblical text: ‘If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector’ (Mt 18:15-17).
“The Bible is very clear to me about what to do if we have a disagreement with one another over some issue pertaining to the Faith. And please remember: To lead someone into heresy is a grievous sin against your brother according to Galatians 5:19-21! The Bible tells us that the Church, not the Bible, is the final court of appeal. I believe this is made obvious in the case of the canon of Scripture as I mentioned. It was the Church that declared the truth about the Bible.
“But isn’t it also telling that since the ‘Reformation’ just 480 years ago — a reformation claiming sola scriptura as its formal principle — there are now over 26,000 denominations that have derived from that principle? The 1982 World Christian Encyclopedia projected in that year that there would be 22,190 denominations by 1985. ‘The present net increase,” it noted, is 270 denominations each year (five new ones a week).’1 If we extend that projection to our time, we have well over 26,000 denominations by now.
“It seems to me that for 1,500 years we only had a few enduring schisms, such as the Coptics and the Orthodox. Now in just 480 years we have this? I hardly think that when Jesus prophesied there would be ‘one shepherd and one fold’ in John 10:16, this is what He had in mind. It seems quite clear to me that not only is sola scriptura unreasonable, unhistorical, and unbiblical — it’s also unworkable.”
Robert says that he must begin the Bible study even though there is very little time remaining for the class. He says the group would take up this subject again in the future and awkwardly begins his talk. You can tell that he’s uneasy as he continues the study, and you decide to be quiet for these last few minutes.
Wow! you think to yourself. I can’t wait to come back again next week!
Tim Staples is the director of evangelization for the Catholic Resource Center in West Covina, CA. He can be reached at 626-334-3549.
1 David Barrett, ed., World Christian Encyclopedia,
1st ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1982), 15-18.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
The Semi-Permeable Membranes of the Various Protestantisms
| by Mark P. Shea |
| 7/21/09 |
One basic rule of thumb to understand in Catholic/Protestant conversations is that it is not the case that Catholics rely on Sacred Tradition and Protestants don't. Rather, Catholics (and by this I mean "educated Catholics speaking out of the Magisterial teaching of the Church") rely on Sacred Tradition and know they do, while Protestants rely on (parts) of Sacred Tradition and (usually) don't know they do.
So, for instance, despite Paul's prescriptions (directed only at clergy of his day) that a man must be the husband of but one wife, nowhere in the text of Scripture is it made clear that Christian marriage must be monogamous for all (a fact that did not escape Luther or John Milton). Nowhere does Scripture spell out that the Holy Spirit is a person, much less the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, consubstantial with the Father and the Son. Similarly, you will look in vain for instructions in Scripture on how to contract a valid marriage (unless you buy this list of "Top 10 Ways to Find a Wife, According to the Bible"):
9. Find a prostitute and marry her (Hos 1:1-3).
8. Find a man with seven daughters, and impress him by watering his flock (Moses, Ex 2:16-21).
7. Purchase a piece of property, and get a woman as part of the deal (Boaz, Ru 4:5-10).
6. Go to a party and hide. When the women come out to dance, grab one and carry her off to be your wife (Benjaminites, Jgs 21:19-25).
5. Have God create a wife for you while you sleep (Adam, Gn 2:19-24).
4. Kill any husband and take his wife (David, 2 Sm 11).
3. Cut 200 foreskins off of your future father-in-law's enemies and get his daughter for a wife (David, 1 Sm 18:27).
2. Even if no one is out there, just wander around a bit and you'll definitely find someone (Cain, Gn 4:16-17).
1. Don't be so picky. Make up for quality with quantity (Solomon, 1 Kgs 11:1-3).
Of course, this doesn't really help much. The fact is, the Bible says "marriage is good" but gives us not one word of instruction on how to do it. That's because Scripture is not and never was intended to be the Big Book of Everything. And yet, of course, Protestants all over the world get married, believe in God the Holy Spirit, and have but one spouse because, as James Dobson says, God's plan is one man and one woman. How do they do this when Scripture is so unclear?
However, in those places where Protestantism attempts to reject Catholic Sacred Tradition, the narrative suddenly and wrenchingly changes. Suddenly, the demand is made for nothing less than an explicit proof text from the Bible. It works like this:
- If a thing is condemned by the Church but permitted by the Protestant (say, gay marriage), the demand is for an explicit text forbidding it. ("Show me where Jesus said one word about not allowing gay marriage! That's just the Church imposing its purely human ideas on what Jesus came to say.")
- Conversely, if a thing is allowed by the Church but condemned by the Protestant, the demand is for an explicit text commanding it. ("Where in the Bible do you find anyone asking us to pray to dead people? That's just the Church imposing it's purely human ideas on what Jesus came to say.")
No, arguing from such obvious implication is out the window. In many circles, even a nearly algebraic piece of logic like
- Jesus is God.
- Mary is His Mother.
- Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.
As remote as the flaky pro-choice Episcopalian and the starchy Bible-thumping Fundamentalist preacher may seem to be from each other, they share a deep commonality in the way they reject whatever aspect of Catholic teaching they dislike. From liberal to conservative, the argument proceeds: "Unless the Bible explicitly commands what I forbid or forbids what I want to do, then the Catholic teaching I dislike is 'unbiblical.'" (Of course, the word "Bible" is not unbiblical -- even though it also never appears in Scripture -- because the word "Bible" is a fragment of extra-biblical Christian tradition generally acceptable to Protestants.)
Indeed all the various forms of Protestantism have this (and only this) one feature in common. They may differ on Mary or baptism or the divinity of Jesus or even the existence of God (if you include Unitarians as a particularly robust form of Protestantism that has jettisoned more of Catholic teaching than its predecessors). But they all agree on erecting semi-permeable membranes in which some (but not all) elements of Sacred Tradition are allowed through (different bits for different groups).
For the present, many (graying) Evangelicals still retain a deep reverence for the sacred writings of Holy Church (though there are some signs that the itch to deconstruct Scripture will wreak enormous damage among those who come to clearly face the choice between the pole in Protestantism that seeks the Apostolic Tradition and the pole that seeks to keep deconstructing until nothing, including Scripture, is left).
For those still in this betwixt-and-between stage, who reverence Scripture and have this conflicted grasp of an Apostolic Tradition coming to them through a semi-permeable membrane, what is needed is a paradigm shift: the realization first of the shell game that is played in order to filter out Catholic traditions according to the preferences of the particular Protestant tradition one adheres to and, second, a willingness to acknowledge the possibility that when this is honestly done, it will be found that no Catholic doctrine -- none whatsoever --actually contradicts Scripture and that all that is essential in Scripture is also essential in Catholic teaching.
Mark P. Shea is a senior editor for www.CatholicExchange.com and a columnist for InsideCatholic. Visit his blog at markshea.blogspot.com.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Radio Replies First Volume - "Bible Only" a false principle
In one way it is. It tells us clearly that Christ established a definite Church which He commissioned to teach all nations. It is very simple from this point of view, for men have but to accept the Catholic Church, and be taught by that Church.
But the Gospel is not simplicity itself in the way you intend. Men have devoted their lives to the study of the Gospels, preparing themselves for the task by profound research in the Hebrew, Syrian, Arabic, Greek, and Latin languages. And even then, many passages are most difficult to understand.
566. But at least the plan of salvation can be understood by the simplest person. We Protestants even tell our children to read their Bibles in order to discern it.
According to the findings of your simple readers there must be hundreds of conflicting plans of salvation, all revealed by the one Christ! As for the capacity of your children, you might as well give them the article in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica on Spectroscopic Analysis as the subject matter of their studies. But the Bible itself is against your theory. Thus St. Peter says that in Scripture there are certain things "hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Pet 3:16. To his mind the private interpretation of Scripture can be most dangerous.
567. God has given us brains to think for ourselves. We do not need Help to understand Scripture.
God had given men brains before He came to teach them Himself, and He came to teach them precisely because their brains could not succeed in finding out the things which were to their peace. If you say that His revealed teachings in the Scriptures together with our brains are enough, those very revealed teachings tell you that they are not. Even in the Old Law God said, "The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth." Mal 2:7. In the New Law Christ sent His Church to teach men, transferring to His Church that authority of God once possessed by the Priests of the Old Law. In the New Testament itself we find Philip the Deacon saying to the Ethiopian, who was reading the Scriptures, "Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?" and the Ethiopian replying, "And how can I unless some man show me?" Acts 8:30. St. Peter, too, explicitly refutes your ideas. "No prophecy of Scripture," he writes, "is of any private interpretation." 2 Pet 1:20.
568. St. Peter means that the Prophets did not prophesy by their own will, but by the Holy Spirit. He does not refer to interpretation by us.
Your own Protestant Bishop Ellicott says of these verses, "The words private interpretation might seem to mean that the sacred writers did not get their prophecies by private interpretation, but by divine inspiration. But this is certainly not the meaning. The real meaning is that the reader must not presume to interpret privately that which is far more than ordinary human thought."
569. Any man who can think has the moral right to interpret anything.
He has not. The very laws of the state are not subject to the interpretation of each and every citizen. There is such a thing as thinking erroneously. In difficulties of civil law a man consults a lawyer who knows legal practice and parallel statutes. Who gives you the right to take greater liberties with divine legislation? A man who knows nothing of Hebrew or Greek, and is quite untrained in Scriptural exegesis, would misapprehend the sense of Scripture in hundreds of places.
570. Did not Christ promise that He would send the Holy Spirit to teach us all truth?
He did not promise that the Holy Spirit would teach each individual separately. If every individual were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, all who read Scripture sincerely should come to the same conclusion. But they do not. The frightful chaos as to the meaning of Scripture is proof positive that the Holy Spirit has not chosen this way of leading men to the truth. It is blasphemy to say that the Holy Spirit does not know His own mind, and that He deliberately leads men into contradictory notions. Christ promised to preserve His Church as a Church by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the only Church which shows signs of having been preserved is the consistent Catholic Church. The individual is guided by the Holy Spirit to a certain extent in the ways of holiness, but in the knowledge of revealed truth he is to be guided by the Catholic Church which Christ sent to teach all nations.
571. I don't see the need of learning to understand a simple story for simple people.
The Bible is not a simple story for simple people. We live thousands of years after the Bible was written, and our language and customs are very different now. No book written at one age is easy for another age. The study of antiquities demands a knowledge of primitive languages of which few are capable, and for which still fewer have the time. Anyway God never intended the Bible to be the sole guide to religion for all time. Christ taught orally and with authority, and He sent His Church to teach in the same way and with the same authority.
572. Hoiv does it help to know Hebrew or Greek?
Because one must know what the original words meant in the language in which Scripture was written. A knowledge of Hebrew and Greek soon shows that the translators do not always find an English word to express the exact sense of the original. God inspired the thoughts of the original writers, not the work of the translators. And if you read a sense into Scripture which God did not intend at all, you no longer have God's Word.
573. Christ chose poor fishermen, not learned men.
He trained them personally, and infused into their minds an exact knowledge of His doctrine. We cannot claim to have received a similar revelation, that we should rank ourselves with them.
574. Then Catholics have to believe just what the Priest likes to tell them?
The Priest cannot tell the people just what he likes. He is obliged to teach just what Christ taught, and which has been taught him in the Name of Christ by the infallible Catholic Church.
575. Is your Church afraid that people will form opinions for themselves?
If we consider some of the opinions people have formed for themselves from their private reading of Scripture there is need to be afraid. Christ's method was to establish a teaching Church. Protestants have a peculiar method of their own, but you cannot blame the Catholic Church for not using the Protestant method, a method which has led to nothing but uncertainty and widespread unbelief.
576. Admitting the necessity of guidance, are not our Protestant ministers as capable as Catholic Priests in telling us what Scripture means?
They might be, if Priests had not an infallible Catholic Church to guide them. The Catholic Church rejoices in the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, and the Priest has the help of her defined doctrines and the constant Catholic tradition as a safeguard. But your Protestant ministers do not claim to be spokesmen of an infallible Church. On their own principles they have to admit that they are possibly wrong. And as a matter of fact, where all Priests are agreed in the essential teachings of Scripture, your ministers come to all kinds of contradictory conclusions. The unity of teaching among Catholic Priests is a greater indication of capability than the chaos which prevails outside the Catholic Church. But the capability of Catholic Priests has little to do with relative personal attainments. It is derived from the authority of the infallible Catholic Church.
577. You speak of the authority of the Church and the weight of tradition. But I have been taught that Scripture is the only rule of faith.
You have been taught wrongly. Scripture itself denies that it is the only rule of faith. The last verse of St. John's Gospel tells us that not all concerning Our Lord's work is contained in Scripture. St. Paul tells us over and over again that much of Christian teaching is to be found in tradition. One who clings to the reading of the Bible only might be able to cite hundreds of texts yet not know Christian doctrine by any means. In fact, the adoption of the Bible only has led to as many opinions as there are men amongst non-Catholics. Finally, Scripture tells us most clearly that the Catholic Church is the rule of faith, that Church which Christ sent to teach all nations and which He commanded men to hear and obey. He who believes in Scripture as his only guide ends by believing in his own mistaken interpretations of the Bible, and that means that he ends by believing in himself.
578. Is not the Church built on the knowledge it gets from the Bible?
No. The Catholic Church was built by Christ and upon Christ before a line of the New Testament was written. She received her doctrine immediately from the lips of Christ, and is safeguarded from error in her teaching by the Holy Spirit. Between 40 and 80 years after her foundation, some of her members wrote the Books of the New Testament. If the Gospels were the only rule of faith, then before they were written there could have been no Christian rule of faith at all!
579. Christ gave us the command to search the Scriptures. Jn 5:39.
That was a retort, not a command, and you cannot turn a particular rebuke into a universal law. Were it a universal law, it would have been impossible of fulfillment by the vast majority during the fourteen centuries prior to the invention of the printing press! But take the context. The Jews, who boasted of their fidelity to the Mosaic Law, would not believe in Christ. He challenged them: "(You) search the Scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me." The Catholic Church could say in the same way to Protestants: "You are ever speaking of searching the Scriptures as opposed to my methods, and think in them to have everlasting life independently of me; yet the same are they that give testimony of me."
580. Do we not read that the early Christians searched the Scriptures daily? Acts 17:11.
They first received the true doctrine from the teaching Church, and then merely checked it in the Scriptures. That is the right procedure, and Catholics today do the same. But your way is not first to be taught by the Church, and then verify, but to try to make out your own religion from the Bible with an untrained mind and by that private interpretation which Scripture itself forbids.
581. Well, I am afraid of nothing as long as I have the pure Word of God to fall back upon.
Without the Catholic Church you cannot prove it to be the pure Word of God. Nor need anyone be afraid of the pure Word of God. What we must fear is the Word of God adulterated by people who read into it whatever they like.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Sola Scriptura
From Fr. Longenecker:"A reader has asked me to elaborate further on the problems with the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura:1. Protestants like to blame Catholics for promoting non-Biblical, human created, late invented doctrines, but sola Scriptura--on which the entire edifice of Protestantism is based--is a doctrine unheard of until the sixteenth century. It is a doctrine invented by the Reformers and it is a doctrine with no Biblical basis. Ask a Protestant to defend sola Scriptura from Scripture and he can't. There are a few proof texts that uphold Scripture as 'profitable for doctrine, reproof etc' but none teach the doctrine of Scripture alone.
2. Even if you could prove sola Scriptura from Scripture it would be a circular argument. "The Bible is the inspired Word of God and our only authority." "Where does it say that?" "In the Bible." "How do you know the Bible is true?" "Because the Bible says it is and we know that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and is true." "How do you know that?" "Because its in the Bible." And so on....and on..."
