Can Catholics Affirm Sola Scriptura?

[michaelp]

Come on Jerry…you don’t even sound willing to try. It may be that you are too bitter at Protestantism for some reason…I understand. But let us begin this dialogue. If you don’t want to, I understand.

Concerning the Creeds, I don’t see how they are difficult to interpret. Yes, they must be understood in context,
and sure there may be some nuances that differ from Protestant to Catholic and even Catholic to Catholic, but I don’t know of any essential disagreement we would have about the main thrust of the creeds. They are not too difficult to interpret.

Contextualizing them is another thing. Again, this is not too difficult since most of the content is propositional and simply requires adherent.

Hope this makes sense.

 

[MariaG]

I want to continue this dialogue and focus on a specific and get your opinions. I posted a slighly longer version of this tonight on the Parchment and Pen blog, but so that you understand that I am not trying to lead the discussion there, I created it with the intention of posting it here as well.

My thoughts are that we should consider the possibility that both sides have been talking past each for quite some time. It would seem to me that both sides are changing (progressing), softening in their language, compromising, and becoming more tolerant of each other.

…(edited for space )

I am still learning here so I look forward to your comments.

I would agree to you that the Sacramental and historical Protestants are close to the Catholic Church. I will say however, that the fundamental branches are not.

However, while the language is certainly softening, there is still a very fundamental difference. That is that when in doubt as to what scripture says, how it should be interpreted, one looks to the Catholic Church for the final say. Take it to the Church

Obviously that could not be tolerated by the reformers. The authority of the Church had to be broken as the final arbitrator. However, I think we can see the fallacy in their aurgument played out in non-sacramental Protestants whom don’t recognize any Tradition whatsoever.

When asked why their INTERPRETATION of scripture trumps anyone elses, they fall back on “the Holy Spirit told me” even when we can show that Catholic, Lutheran, Anglicans all believe in infant baptism, we are all wrong and they are right. The historical Tradtion of infant baptism is thrown away in preference for their interpretation of scripture.

Eventually, this road ends up with people who can not even be called Protestant much less Christian with JW’s, Oneness pentecostals and Mormons, who have strayed so far from the proper interpretation of scripture that the Trinity, which most Christians would say is “plain” to “see”, is no longer thought to even be true.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Protestants also don’t really believe in the communion of saints mentioned in the apostle’s creed.

The apostles and early church believed in it and prayed for the dead.

Just another case of the truth versus heresy!

 

[MariaG]

Protestants also don’t really believe in the communion of saints mentioned in the apostle’s creed.

The apostles and early church believed in it and prayed for the dead.

Just another case of the truth versus heresy!

Not true for all Protestants. Also, there is a problem since much of the scripture that was thrown out, contained references to praying for the dead.

So the Protestants who rely on the primacy of protestant scripture, are left with a big hole and lack, so their decision, using the primacy of scripture, seems correct when applied to the communion of Saints. Although I would argue that it is, AT LEAST, implicit in other parts of the bible, accepted as inspired by Protestants

God Bless,
Maria

 

[michaelp]

I would agree to you that the Sacramental and historical Protestants are close to the Catholic Church. I will say however, that the fundamental branches are not.

However, while the language is certainly softening, there is still a very fundamental difference. That is that when in doubt as to what scripture says, how it should be interpreted, one looks to the Catholic Church for the final say. Take it to the Church

Obviously that could not be tolerated by the reformers. The authority of the Church had to be broken as the final arbitrator. However, I think we can see the fallacy in their aurgument played out in non-sacramental Protestants whom don’t recognize any Tradition whatsoever.

When asked why their INTERPRETATION of scripture trumps anyone elses, they fall back on “the Holy Spirit told me” even when we can show that Catholic, Lutheran, Anglicans all believe in infant baptism, we are all wrong and they are right. The historical Tradtion of infant baptism is thrown away in preference for their interpretation of scripture.

Eventually, this road ends up with people who can not even be called Protestant much less Christian with JW’s, Oneness pentecostals and Mormons, who have strayed so far from the proper interpretation of scripture that the Trinity, which most Christians would say is “plain” to “see”, is no longer thought to even be true.

God Bless,
Maria

Great points! I agree.

 

[st_felicity]

Not true for all Protestants. Also, there is a problem since much of the scripture that was thrown out, contained references to praying for the dead.

So the Protestants who rely on the primacy of protestant scripture, are left with a big hole and lack, so their decision, using the primacy of scripture, seems correct when applied to the communion of Saints. Although I would argue that it is, AT LEAST, implicit in other parts of the bible, accepted as inspired by Protestants

God Bless,
Maria

…Another example why authoritative “teachers” are NECESSARY!

 

[MariaG]

Great points! I agree.

“However, I think we can see the fallacy in their aurgument played out in non-sacramental Protestants whom don’t recognize any Tradition whatsoever”

You see the fallacy of the reformers argument

Just kidding . I know you probably are just agreeing with the points made about the non-Sacremental Protestants, and don’t see a basic problem in the argument, just how it has been used and twisted by some.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[michaelp]

I agree. Athoritative teachers are necessary.

 

[michaelp]

“However, I think we can see the fallacy in their aurgument played out in non-sacramental Protestants whom don’t recognize any Tradition whatsoever”

You see the fallacy of the reformers argument

Just kidding . I know you probably are just agreeing with the points made about the non-Sacremental Protestants, and don’t see a basic problem in the argument, just how it has been used and twisted by some.

God Bless,
Maria

lol. Yes, well, the Reformers did not get everything right, and they are not part of any infallible source for Protestants.

 

[st_felicity]

I agree. Athoritative teachers are necessary.

But is the authority merely as MariaG put it, based on an opinion that “trumps anyone elses, [because]… “the Holy Spirit told me” ?” Will you please explain how an authoritative teacher is verified in the Protestant ranks.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Scripture is salvation history.

Tradition is the Gospel the apostles taught and preached, that is, the Catholic faith.

The catechism presents this living Tradition.

Mark 16:16 says salvation comes from believing the Gospel that was preached, (Tradition), that is from believing the teachings of the Catholic Church.

It is the Catechism, but not the Catechism alone which presents our Oral Sacred Tradition.

 

[MariaG]

But is the authority merely as MariaG put it, based on an opinion that “trumps anyone elses, [because]… “the Holy Spirit told me” ?” Will you please explain how an authoritative teacher is verified in the Protestant ranks.

Yes, this is the problem that I see it and would be interested in understanding the Sacramental Protestant point of view better. For this was one of the factors in my reversion to Catholicism, but it was from non-Sacramental Protestants that I came from. In the non-Sacramental arena, it is quite apparent that each pastor believes he has the correct interpretation, but each one has very convincing reasons on why they are right. I did not see how the average person was to figure out who was right. “Trust the leading of the Holy Spirit” brought a good friend into the Mormon Church

Even when you have the Sacramental protestants who agree that Tradition is important, but say Scripture is the primary source when Tradtion contradicts Scripture, who is the authority that is interpreting Scripture? And how do you know they are right?

 

[michaelp]

But is the authority merely as MariaG put it, based on an opinion that “trumps anyone elses, [because]… “the Holy Spirit told me” ?” Will you please explain how an authoritative teacher is verified in the Protestant ranks.

This is a good question and I by no means want to suggest that this is not a serious weakness in most branches of Protestantism. But I think there are two:

1. Historical-grammatical exegesis: When you have as many Protestant commentaries as I and converse with so many Protestant exegetes, you find that their is common consensus about most issues of Scripture, just not in particulars that are part of the main thrust of the individual authors argument. As well, there is a great deal of respect, accountability, and fear among those who are truly committed to understanding the text. These guys are not in the business of confirming their prejudice.
2. Historical accountability: One has to have a firm grasp on the history of the Church and its interpretation of the traditions to understand the accountability that the regula fide provides.
3. A firm grasp on what is allowed by semper reformanda. This does not mean that we can change anything, but it does mean that we can understand things better than before. For example, new manuscript discoveries provide evidence that must be followed no matter what our prejudice might suggest. That is why the majority of evangelical scholar (dare I say all?) reject the longer ending of Mark 16. It is just not there in the early manuscripts.

I agree with you whole heartedly that the “Holy Spirit” trump card is no good. The Holy Spirit provides the evidences and we must follow them more as a scientist, not quite so much as a lawyer. We are not in the business of confirmation of prejudices.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I want to continue this dialogue and focus on a specific and get your opinions. I posted a slighly longer version of this tonight on the Parchment and Pen blog, but so that you understand that I am not trying to lead the discussion there, I created it with the intention of posting it here as well.

My thoughts are that we should consider the possibility that both sides have been talking past each for quite some time. It would seem to me that both sides are changing (progressing), softening in their language, compromising, and becoming more tolerant of each other.

I want to focus the attention of here to the issue of the issue of authority, briefly visiting the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura and the Catholic alternatives. Sola Scriptura is the view held by Protestants with this short definition:

The Scriptures are the final and only infallible source of authority for the Christian

Protestants often misunderstand the intent of the Reformers believing that sola Scriptura is defined this way:

The Scriptures are the only authority for the Christian

Notice the difference? In the first, there are other sources of authority recognized (parents, husbands, the government, creation or natural revelation, and, yes, church authorities [1 Pet. 2:13-15; Heb. 13:17; Eph. 5:22]). In the second, the common slogan sums it up well, “If its not in the Bible, I don’t believe it.”
It must be stated emphatically that historic Protestantism does not recognize the second as a legitimate definition of sola Sciptura.

Therefore, setting aside the aberrant view of sola Scriptura, let’s go with this one:

The Scriptures are the final and only infallible source of authority for the Christian, but not the only authority. They contain all that is necessary for salvation.

You’ve left out the Holy Spirit - which the Westminster Confession is very careful not to do. Without the Spirit of God, the inner meaning, the meaning that is proper & peculiar to the Bible & its parts in virtue of which it is the Bible with the effects proper & peculiar to the Bible cannot be known.​

For you, the Catholic, on the other hand, the options are different. It would seem to me that Catholicism holds to the view that both Tradition and Scripture are infallible authorities for the Christian. This is called the “dual source theory.” …

Catholics have two options when it comes to this issue. First, they can say that Tradition and Scripture each have essential elements that are needed for salvation. Therefore, in order to have a sufficient knowledge base for salvation to be possible, one must have the information from both Scripture and Tradition, neither of which will do alone. The second option is called the “material sufficiency” view. This option says that all that is necessary for salvation is present within the Scriptures by themselves. The “material sufficiency” view is very close to the historic Protestant view of sola Scriptura.

…

Lets compare this to the historic Protestant understanding described above:

The Scriptures are the final and only infallible source of authority for the Christian, but not the only authority. They contain all that is necessary for salvation.

If this is the case, then Protestant and Catholics are much more alike in their view of authority than most realize.

Can Catholics affirm sola Scriptura? No. But they can affirm prima Sciptura with material sufficiency. Does this mean that if a Catholic does not affirm prima Scriptura with material sufficiency that I think they are bound for the flames? No. Even these affirm the authority and inspiration of Scripture.

I am still learning here so I look forward to your comments.

I don’t see why Catholics can’t affirm some form of Sola Scriptura.​

• Yet, to give either Scripture or Tradition primacy may be mistaken, as that seems to emphasise the means more than their Giver. No means would even exist, were it not for God’s Goodness. Trent says they are to be “received with equal affection & respect” - that says nothing of their relative status.
• Then again, maybe the Bible & Tradition indwell one another, & are indwelt by God - or some such thing.
• Or maybe each has a relative priority, so as to be prior to the other in some respects, neither being absolutely prior to the other.
• Maybe they are being conceived as static & (perhaps also) self-contained - were they regarded as dynamic, we might get somewhere.
• Maybe some or all these are valid.

 

[michaelp]

It is the Catechism, but not the Catechism alone which presents our Oral Sacred Tradition.

That is right, the Catechism is a testament to the Oral Tradition, not the Tradition itself.

 

[michaelp]

You’ve left out the Holy Spirit - which the Westminster Confession is very careful not to do. Without the Spirit of God, the inner meaning, the meaning that is proper & peculiar to the Bible & its parts in virtue of which it is the Bible with the effects proper & peculiar to the Bible cannot be known. ## I don’t see why Catholics can’t affirm some form of Sola Scriptura.​

• Yet, to give either Scripture or Tradition primacy may be mistaken, as that seems to emphasise the means more than their Giver. No means would even exist, were it not for God’s Goodness. Trent says they are to be “received with equal affection & respect” - that says nothing of their relative status.
• Then again, maybe the Bible & Tradition indwell one another, & are indwelt by God - or some such thing.
• Or maybe each has a relative priority, so as to be prior to the other in some respects, neither being absolutely prior to the other.
• Maybe they are being conceived as static & (perhaps also) self-contained - were they regarded as dynamic, we might get somewhere.
• Maybe some or all these are valid.

Thanks Michael. Helpful comments. I am certianly willing to admit that most Protestantism has moved to some form of Bibliolotry, losing focus on the center of our faith, Jesus Christ.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

2 Thessalonians 2:14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle

We could have the Church without the Bible, but we could not have the Bible without the Church. It therefore holds that Sacred Tradition came before the Bible.

For Catholics, the Word of God is always Scripture in Tradition not Scripture alone. Add to this the Magisterium and you have the “three-legged stool”. If you take away one of the legs the stool collapses.

Dei Verbum paragraph 10 "It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”

That quotation shows the usefulness of all three - it does not show that Tradition is the Word of God.​

The Word of God signifies

• Christ
• the Bible, which witnesses to Him as to its Grand Subject
• the Apostolic preaching of Him
  But to regard the texts of the Fathers, say, or the Ecumenical Councils, as the Word of God, is to confuse inspiration (which is a defining property of Scripture) with assistance or with preservation (which are fine for uninspired sources). The result of making mere human sources (albeit, God-assisted ones; to some degree at least) is to degrade the Bible, & to make it no more weighty than a mere definition: it becomes the word of man, & nothing more, God-assisted as it may be. That is to deny its inspiration, by emptying the notion of inspiration of its meaning

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

<< I would disagree with the assumption that the Catholic church is the sole inheritor of apostolic succession >>

Well by 800 A.D. you would have to agree it became the sole inheritor, for it was the only orthodox Church. And a few evangelical books responding to Catholicism I like to quote:

“But he [Karl Keating] goes too far in thinking that we think that Christ did not establish a visible Church. Christ most certainly did!” (Robert Zins, Romanism [1995], page 139); and

“Catholic apologists misrepresent the Evangelical as teaching only a ‘spiritual’ church, one that is essentially ‘invisible.’ However, although the Westminster Confession does use the term ‘invisible’ to describe the universal church, what is meant by the term is not that the church cannot be seen (as so many Catholic apologists mistakenly assume in their arguments against this notion), but that the church transcends time and geographic locale. That is to say, Evangelicals view the church as the body of Christ composed of all believers irrespective of their era, location or denominational affiliation.” (Eric Svendsen, Evangelical Answers [1997], page 75)

“The authors of the New Testament did not distinguish between the visible and invisible church. To them, the church that existed in the world was the only church there was…This visible church was the church…we do an injustice to the teaching of the New Testament authors if we impose this conception of an invisible church on the ideas they formulated. These authors were describing the concrete, historical, visible church that had come into existence in their day, and which was rapidly spreading throughout the Mediterranean world. It is this church that they chose to label the ecclesia.” (Craig Van Gelder, The Essence of the Church [Baker, 2000], page 105,106)

“Evangelicals also believe that the church is visible, existing now in the world. What is at issue is the claim that the Roman Catholic jurisdiction is the only true manifestation of the body of Christ on earth. This is the question of authority over which Catholics and Protestants disagree…it is true that when the body of Christ began it was all visible since no believers had died and gone to heaven, so of course it was a visible church when Christ founded it. The invisible church only grew as Christians died and went to heaven. Protestants do not deny that there was a visible Christian church on earth that traces back to the apostles who exercised authority over it, including excommunication. What Protestants object to (and Catholics have not proven) is that [the] Roman Catholic jurisdiction is the sole heir to this original visible church that began with the apostles and will continue until Christ comes without the gates of hell destroying it.” (Geisler/MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals [Baker, 1995], page 112, 276-277)

Catechism:

770. The Church is in history, but at the same time she transcends it. It is only “with the eyes of faith” that one can see her in her visible reality and at the same time in her spiritual reality as bearer of divine life.

So close, yet so far:

“The Catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect…The visible Church, which is also Catholic or universal under the Gospel, consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion…” (Westminster Confession, chapter XXV, from Henry Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church [Oxford, 1963], page 348)

Phil P

The WCF is talking of​

• the Church as the elect - and also, of
• the empirically discoverable Church
  AFAICS, the CC makes similar distinctions, but uses different words. And is similarly careful not to confuse the Church of the elect, with the Church that containing the elect, contains others also: this latter being the CC as usually discussed on these fora. I think the disagreements between Rome & Geneva are mostly elsewhere than at this point.

 

[st_felicity]

This is a good question and I by no means want to suggest that this is not a serious weakness in most branches of Protestantism. But I think there are two:

1. Historical-grammatical exegesis: When you have as many Protestant commentaries as I and converse with so many Protestant exegetes, you find that their is common consensus

This “common consensus” is among PROTESTants…the common consensus tosses out Catholic commentaries to arrive at their own exegesis. If the consensus is among those who have already decided not to hear the voice of the Church that was solely responsible for carrying the Scripture to Christ’s flock for over a thousand years…how is that being unbias?

As well, there is a great deal of respect, accountability, and fear among those who are truly committed to understanding the text.

I don’t doubt that to be true–however, I reassert, they are chopping off their nose to spite their face by ignoring Catholic exegesis in favor of their “better way.” I’m not saying embrace it whole-heartedly…just allow Catholic perspective equal footing and credence when considering issues in your historio-grammatical exegesis. Currently, something being called “Catholic” carries with it the baggage of 2000 years and that overshadows the significance of the thology.

1. Historical accountability: One has to have a firm grasp on the history of the Church and its interpretation of the traditions to understand the accountability that the regula fide provides.

I don’t disagree with that either, but again–there are many biased sources that need to be balanced out.

1. A firm grasp on what is allowed by semper reformanda. This does not mean that we can change anything, but it does mean that we can understand things better than before. For example, new manuscript discoveries provide evidence that must be followed no matter what our prejudice might suggest. That is why the majority of evangelical scholar (dare I say all?) reject the longer ending of Mark 16. It is just not there in the early manuscripts.

I think such study is important, but does this call into question any of the “esentials?”

I agree with you whole heartedly that the “Holy Spirit” trump card is no good. The Holy Spirit provides the evidences and we must follow them more as a scientist, not quite so much as a lawyer. .

How does this scientist lawyer analogy work with Biblical verses that say such things as:

Mark.10

1. 
   *]15] Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
   God’s kingdom is not merely for the well educated. IMHO–education can sometimes be a stumbling block.

 

[AngelicDoctor]

The second option is called the “material sufficiency” view. This option says that all that is necessary for salvation is present within the Scriptures by themselves. The “material sufficiency” view is very close to the historic Protestant view of sola Scriptura.

In this case, as we have it now, Catholics can hold to this option:

Scripture and Tradition are both needed to provide essential information concerning salvation

Or the material sufficiency option:

Scripture by itself contains sufficient information to bring about salvation

This last one is, again, very close to the second option of sola Scriptura described above.

Another option for Catholics has to do with the whether or not their is primacy of Scripture over tradition or vice versa. Some Catholics hold to a view called prima Scriptura. Prima Scriptura is the view that while there are two sources of the one deposit, Scripture holds primacy. In other words, Scripture has the final say and is the first among equals…

Is it the same thing to say that Scripture has a certain priority over Tradition, AND that “Scripture by itself contains sufficient information to bring about salvation.” ?

For example, a Catholic would say that the sacraments are necessary for salvation (at least, as the ordinary means through which God works). They would also say that the sacraments were instituted by Christ and that there is a basis for them in Scripture (that is, they are present, at least in seminal form, in Scripture). However, the liturgy of the Church, as it has developed in time and as it is authoritatively exercised, is part of Tradition (that is, it is inseparable from the living Tradition of the Church)?

Secondly, can we ever speak of Scripture as having a sufficiency when Scripture apart from its accurate and authoritative interpretation (Tradition) is meaningless? In other words, Scripture itself is not sufficient, because its proper interpretation is also needed… and that requires a Church.