Protestants love to tell us how their religion is based on the 'clear and simple reading of the Bible.' "Oh yes!" they exclaim, "We just opened up the Bible and read what it said and suddenly it became clear that the Catholic Church was wrong and Evangelical Christianity was right!" Hogwash. They listened to someone who interpreted the Bible and told them what they thought it meant. In fact, they listened to people who regularly mis quote the Bible, take verses out of context, ignore uncomfortable passages and come up with the most amazingly convoluted explanations for texts that do not agree with their theology.
Here are two examples. I could give many more. The first is from St John's gospel chapter three, v.5-- Jesus says to Nicodemus, "Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit he cannot see the kingdom of God." Within the whole chapter we see that Jesus is speaking of being born again, and to affirm that he is teaching the necessity of baptism, immediately after this conversation we see Jesus out baptizing with his disciples. From the beginning the church fathers understood 'born of water and the Spirit' to refer to baptism. There is no deviation from such an obvious and clear interpretation. Nevertheless, along come the Evangelical Christians some 1900 years later and say, "What this verse really refers to is the amniotic fluid--the 'waters breaking' when a child is born. Therefore the 'water' reference does not mean baptism. It just means physical birth. This from people who claim that they only wish to read the simple, clear and honest meaning of Scripture...not to mention the fact that these are folks who blame the Catholic Church for following late, man made and falsely imagined doctrines. So go figure.
The second example is from John chapter 6 in which Jesus says "Unless a man eat my flesh and drink my blood he does not have life within him." From the earliest days in the church this was always understood in the simplest and most straightforward manner. It was linked with Jesus' words at the Last Supper when he took bread blessed it, said, This is my Body" and gave it to them. The early church fathers all taught that the Eucharistic Bread really was the Body of Christ, and that it was his flesh which he said we must eat if we would have life. Well, along come the Evangelical Protestants, who always take the plain words of Scripture and (of course) never follow the interpretations of theologians and they read these words and say, "He didn't really mean that we had to eat his flesh. He meant that spiritually we have to take him within ourselves and get saved."
These are only two examples. The same thing could be multiplied for Anglicans, Methodists or any other type of Protestant. All of them read the Scripture through a lens. They all rely on a theological tradition and a theological bias which helps them filter, interpret and analyze Scripture. My point is that there is nothing wrong with this. What's wrong is that they pretend that they don't have this theological bias and a denominational filter in place.
Where Catholicism differs is that we admit that an interpretative authority is necessary, and we affirm and celebrate that interpretative authority. The authority is the Church which Christ founded. The same Church from which and into which the Scriptures were inspired in the first place, the same Church in which the Epistles of the Apostles were read to the first Christians, the same Church which struggled to define the New Testament canon. The same Church that loved and taught and preached the Scriptures from the beginning. Catholics see that the Bible is the record of the life of the Body of Christ, and that it cannot be interpreted and lived fully unless it is done within and through the fullness of the Church.
Somewhere G.K.Chesterton wrote about the absurdity of the Sola Scriptura position. Imagine, he said, that there was a great and marvelous procession with a king and judges and lords and ladies and soldiers triumphant home from war. Imagine that this great procession was decked with finery, great works of art were carried in procession. Heroes and heroines of all the ages were there, and this great and glorious procession was accompanied by music and marching and men on horseback and ladies in carriages and in the midst of this procession the great book of wisdom was carried in procession too. This book contained all the wisdom and thought and history of this great people and so it was venerated and indeed was inspired by their God and formed the foundation of their noble and fine religion.
Sola Scriptura is like taking the book and destroying everything else and saying everything is in the book and nothing else matters.
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Superb commentary, Father. I have told Protestant friends that the Biblical language about the Eucharist is simple and straightforward, and that's how we Catholics take it - since the beginning - and I don't think they get it, sorry to say. But maybe I've planted seeds; you never know. Thanks!
Father, I must be thick tonight, but don't see the point of the Chesterton reference. Can you spell it out a bit more fully?
Good article. It seems to me that one of the problems with that poly-lithic "religion" which is Protestantism is that a great many Protestants insist that each verse can have one and only one interpretation. Thus, a verse which is to be interepreted literally ought not be interpreted metaphorically, and one whcih is interpreted morally can't also be interpreted allegorically. They've a false dichotomy (only with four possible choices and not two), and either/or and not a both (all of the above)/and interpretation. The quote from Chesterton, by the way, is found in "The Catholic Church and Conversion."
Amen, Father.
You've got the whole vast parade of the Catholic Church with saints and scholars and history and architecture and art and music and learning and tradition and monasteries and spiritualities etc etc etc and they respond by saying, "Bible only" forget the rest?
Really, Father! And you accuse me of setting up a straw man! In my innocence I have never heard said the things you describe in your first three paragraphs. And anyway, I thought that 'amazingly convoluted explanations' were the province of the Jesuits?
Seriously, the danger, it seems to me, in accepting a single interpreter as being authoritative is the risk that a single interpretation becomes set in stone. That which is set in stone has had the life squeezed out of it - the constant complaint of our Lord about the religion of the Pharisees - which might lead us to forget that the Bible is the living word of God.
Chesterton's parable is fine so long as the wonderful procession of his imagining is actually fit for the purpose of giving honour to the book and its contents. If by its very existence the procession stands in denial of the contents of the book, then you have not honour, just a sham and a charade. 'Sola Scriptura' is the touchstone against which all the elements in the procession must be judged.
The followers of Christ, surely, have always to tread a careful path between beautifying the Church which is the House of God and serving the Church which is the People of God.
I figured maybe that was it--thanks!
Seems I recall some commandments being set in stone once. I do not see the life being squeezed out of those yet. :)
Vic, if you lived here in the American Bible Belt you would find such convoluted interpretations from people who believe in the 'simple, honest reading of Scripture' a commonplace experience.
Here are a couple of Anglican ones I experienced while living in your beautiful island:
The Anglican hospital chaplain who encouraged a woman to have an abortion because Jesus said, "Let the little children come unto me." Or what about the pro homosexual argument that David and Jonathan were gay lovers and so were Jesus and the Apostle John?
The Catholic view is not that some monolithic AUTHORITY steps in to dictate every thought process and every interpretation of every verse and that it is forever set in stone. Instead the teaching authority of the church is more often corrective the prescriptive.
When the faithful err in their interpretation the Church corrects them. This is very different from the sort of Stalinesque view you seem to be setting up.
Thank you for the astute commentary. As a convert from Fundamentalism, I see with painful clarity just how true this is. At the time, however, it was as if I was totally blind and I literally could not see the necessity of an interpretive authority. I think part of the problem was being so disconnected from early Church history. I think we all sort of liked to imagine that the early Church looked like our loose aggregate of believers spread among various denominations and that it was all very unstructured with no authority. The fact there was no NT canon until the 4th century and that it was decided upon by Catholic bishops was ignored and hardly any of us questioned the idea of Sola Scriptura or who had the authority to determine what was to be considered Scripture in the first place!
Ultimately I think many Protestants could come to embrace the Church if they were just educated correctly/fully and they took the time to think these issues through with a critical mind.
Biblical commentaries are used as authorities, so no-one simply relies on the Holy Spirit. They trust the author or a group of authors. I would only trust Catholic authority regarding interpretation of scripture as scripture herself advises that man should seek help from someone who has authority in understanding her.
Acts 8:30-31 (New International Version, ©2010)
30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
Scripture also confirms that the traditions themselves have been written down, therefore tradition has meaning and influence for us all.
Luke 1:1-4.1 "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."
Lets face it, before that Guttenburg printing press thingy was invented, no-one read anything. Only the Catholic Church had possession of the word, so God must have given them authority, or else no-one had it and we know someone did because Jesus commissioned a group and sent them out. What we need to discover is a line going back all the way to that group He sent, an unbroken lineage. Then we will have the correct bunch that were originally called. Oh wait! We have that already.......and Christ's promise, found in scripture never to leave them (the apostles).
Matt 28:20 "and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
Now which Church has that lineage in it's history?
As an Anglican I agree that "Tradition" as well as the Church has a role to play in Scriptural interpretation. My position is the same as the early fathers, and that is in order for a "Tradition" to be true and valid is if that "Tradition" does not contradict Scripture, the Catechism even says that the Church is not above Scripture. In practice however the RCC has elevated itself above Scripture. If it is the RCC that defines what the Canon is, if it is the RCC that defines what "Traditions are true then therefore the Church is above both Scripture and Tradition hence the true Roman position is "Sola Ecclesia" as opposed to the Protestant position of "Sola Scriptura"
From my reading of the Early Fathers I would say that they are much closer to the Protestant position of "Sola Scriptura" than what Rome teaches and practises today.
For Erika; everything you bring up in your post about the Canon of Scripture can be and has been refuted and proven false. For example you write:
"The fact there was no NT canon until the 4th century and that it was decided upon by Catholic bishops"
The fact is that there was an existing OT Canon from the very beginning of the Church, the OT Canon was settled and existing by Jesus time. The Church received the OT Canon as it existed, it did not determine the OT Canon. The same is true of the NT Canon which was settled and accepted and used by 100 AD.
The Church merely recognised an already existing Canon in the 4th Century. Also to note that those "Councils" you mention, namely Carthage, Hippo, and Rome were LOCAL Councils and NOT universally binding Ecumenical Councils.
If you wanted to be accurate and consistent you should say that there was no NT Canon until 1545 or so when the Council of Trent once and for all determined and settled the complete Canon of the Bible both OT and NT, which from a Roman perspective would mean that no one had an "Infallible Canon" until the "Infallible" Council of Trent infallibly defined an infallible Canon in the mid 16th century
I WAS a Roman Catholic, born one and raised one, I grew up in a predominantly Catholic part of the USA ( like 90% Catholic) knowing Catholicism as no convert like yourself and others will ever know it. I actually wanted to be a RC Apologist so I studied bothy History and the Scriptures carefully for more than 5 years. I read numerous Catholic sources and Protestant sources as well, I did look at it critically from History to theology and saw that Roman claims are utterly false and without merit.
"To be deep into History is to cease to be a Protestant Fundamentalist, to be deeper still in History and to honestly and critically study it is to cease to be Roman Catholic"
John, when you reject the authority of the Catholic Church you must fall back on the sole authority of Sacred Scripture.
Can you therefore prove Sola Scriptura from Scripture for us?
In fact you can't. Sola Scriptura is a late, human invented dogma--and this from Protestants who blame Catholics for following later, human invented dogmas.
Furthermore--your whole theology is based on it, and yet it has no proof in Scripture itself and is a doctrine invented by the Reformers in the sixteenth century as the only authority they had left after they rejected the authority of the Church.
But I may be wrong. Please go ahead and provide the proof texts from Scripture which prove Sola Scriptura.
John said:
'My position is the same as the early fathers'
So, just to cite one example of that 'sameness', I trust you would give a whole hearted 'Amen' to the following ....?
Ignatius, in a Letter to the Smyrnaeans writes:
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior, Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their own disputes."
John said:
'I actually wanted to be a RC Apologist'
I've been praying for you John, about this desire and I think you are indeed, going to be a great Catholic apologist one day. These are your formation years. Please look up Tim Staples on youtube, you remind me of him a little.
God bless you brother.
"Prooftext" for Sola Scriptura:
You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work. (2 Timothy 3: 15-17)
OK, Father, your turn. Provide a "prooftext" for the "Scripture plus Tradition" argument.
Joseph, this passage is often used as a proof text for sola Scriptura. Catholics affirm with you that the Scriptures are good for doctrine, for reproof and for correction in righteousness ('scuse me but I memorized this in the King James Version) However, while this passage tells us what Scripture is good for, nowhere does it say that Scripture is the only source of authority.
Indeed apostolic tradition is upheld in I Corinthians 11.2 where the Apostle Paul says, "I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you." and in 2 Thessalonians 2.15 St Paul adds, "Therefore brothers and sisters, hold on to the traditions that we taught you, whether by speech or by letter."
So in the passage from Timothy the Apostle tells us what Scripture is good for, and we affirm the inspiration of Scripture and it's usefulness in all these ways, but not that it is all sufficient, or the only authority-- for in the two verses I shared with you the Apostle commends apostolic tradition twice, and specifies that this tradition is delivered both orally and in written form.
Thus the Catholic view is the more Scriptural for we embrace both Scripture and Tradition whereas the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura actually denies the validity of apostolic tradition, and therefore must deny or violate these two verses in which the Apostle clearly recommends both written and oral tradition.
In doing so the Protestant cuts off the branch he is sitting on because he has said he only follows Scripture, but Scripture itself commends the sacredness of Apostolic Tradition, so if he denies the validity of Apostolic Tradition he rejects the very Scriptural authority he claims to follow.
Bouyer made the distinction that believing ins the supreme authority of Scripture is correct. There is no 'higher' authority than Gods own inspired words. Period. But Scripture is not the only authority: He has granted the Church interpretive rights. If you beoieve that, you also believe of course that the later will not contradict or falsify the latter. But the commonality with Protestants is this: only God's word in Scripture is verbally inspired, so it gets unique homage and a unique place as the source of truth. Tradition as passed on by the Magisterium is equally binding and true, but not equally inspired.
Obpoet, if you haven't seen the life squeezed out of the Ten Commandments yet, take a closer look at what the Pharisees did to them! Either they were the sum total of obligation ("Provided that I do not murder, steal or envy, etc. I shall be all right") or they were interpreted and defined through a thousand ramifications such that they became impossible to observe in their fullness.
And then look at our Lord's summary of the Law - strong on love and light on definition.
Father, your choice of 1 Corinthians 11.2 is most instructive: after praising his hearers for keeping his traditions Paul goes on to explain what those traditions were - in this particular instance the question of the correct apparel in worship for men and women.
Granted that the New Testament as we have it is the Tradition of the Apostles written down for the benefit of succeeding generations, is it not reasonable to suppose that they wrote down into Scripture EVERYTHING that was considered necessary to be handed on from the Apostolic Tradition? What would be the point of NOT including everything that was considered necessary?
It would be like an American trying to teach the English how to play gridiron, or an Englishman trying to teach Americans how to play cricket, and making sure that all the written Laws of the Game were fully explained; only to introduce something entirely new from time to time in the middle of a game by saying, "Ah, yes! I know it isn't actually written down anywhere, but this that I now tell you is OK because it's Tradition!"
"The Theology of the Moving Goalpost!"
Flying Vic, Let's stick to the Scriptures. That's what sola Scriptura tells us to do right?
So I stick to the Scriptures and provide two corroborating texts to show that the Apostles commended not only tradition, but both the written and the oral traditions.
Furthermore, rather than my own supposition, I could support this with numerous citations from the Apostolic Fathers where they also say that both the Scriptures and the Apostolic tradition are handed on in a living teaching authority by virtue of apostolic succession.
You reply with, "It is reasonable to suppose is it not that it must have all been written down?"
Maybe, maybe not, but we can't really go on supposition. We don't need to as we have the next generation of successors to the apostles who also commend and indeed, command, obedience to the apostolic traditions--both written and spoken.
Your argument really does sound like having your cake and eating it!
The whole papal edifice is built upon "You are Peter..." as recorded in Scripture; and yet you still as a Church reserve the right to introduce matters "necessary for salvation" that have no basis in Scripture at all.
How is Tradition to be distinguished from chinese whispers if it was not written down?
If Tradition was written down, why is it not part of Scripture?
I can testify that Fr. L is correct -- protestants do not really read the Bible; they "read" what they have been told the Bible says. I did this for many years without even being aware that was what I was doing. Everyone around me within my prot church did the same. Nobody was aware of what they were actually "reading." At last I began to read what was actually there on the pages of the Bible, and it wasn't long before I was a Catholic, thanks be to God.
I live in the hope that a Protestant (like me until 2008) will cite sola scriptura to me so that I can make Father's points.
Father, any idea where the paraphrase from GKC comes from?
Really Vic what is it that you want? First you blame us for being dogmatic and hopelessly hidebound and black and white.
Then when we introduce you to the concept of Tradition in the church--which is flexible, somewhat ambiguous and open ended and adaptable you say you want everything written down.
I wish you would make your mind up!
You're confusing our roles, Father! You're the one making statements; I'm the one asking questions and trying to make sense of what you say.
Can I help it if your blog moves from 'authority' and 'certainty' to 'flexible' and 'somewhat ambiguous' in the course of a few paragraphs?
Dear Vic, In fact Catholicism is both flexible and dogmatic, but you can't see that because you're understandably locked into your preconceptions about Catholicism and can't see it clearly.
I'm not blaming you for that. The fact of the matter is that it is very difficult to really understand Catholicism from the outside.
Indeed apostolic tradition is upheld in I Corinthians 11.2 where the Apostle Paul says, "I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you." and in 2 Thessalonians 2.15 St Paul adds, "Therefore brothers and sisters, hold on to the traditions that we taught you, whether by speech or by letter."
Very well, Father, what specific traditions is St. Paul referring to and to what degree do those traditions reflect what the Catholic Church means by tradition? Nowhere does St. Paul mention Mary as a Co-Redemptrix, the kind of hagiographic intercessory bureaucracy with which Catholics are enamoured, nor others that developed decades (if not centuries) after his death in 69 A.D.
It certainly doesn't mention the kind of monarchistic, bureaucratic hierarchy that the Church believes is necessary to justify and perpetuate apostolic succession...with such institutions as the Curia, which is a direct reflection of Roman imperial government.
"Understandably locked into my preconceptions"? That sounds to me like you're playing your "Get out of jail free" card!
All I'm doing here is responding to what you have written. I have my hands full trying to understand Anglicanism - and I am inside that, whatever John might think...
Joe Hippo you changed the subject. Glad to see however, that you concede my essential point that three doctrine of sola Scriptura has no foundation in scripture, that it is a vain, human invention of the sixteenth c. revolution, and that reverence for, and adherence to apostolic tradition is a necessary part of the divine revelation.
Vic--"I have my hands full trying to understand Anglicanism " bless you. That is a challenge!
Living in the heart of the "Bible Belt" and associating with So. Baptists and Assembly of God types, I can testify that these groups are wont to introduce their own pride filled interpretations of scripture.There are over 30,000 disparate protestant groups in the USA so which one has the correct interpretation?
There was no approved NT canon before the end of the 4th Century and to deny this is to live in a fantasy world. The NT scriptures were written but no approval rendered by the Catholic church until 397. and thereafter. So what did Christianity do for nearly 400 years without an approved canon?
Post a Comment