Catholics believe in Sola Scriptura

[Truthstalker]

on which it speaks.

This, frankly, has given me a lot of headache. There is a famous scene in the Brothers Karamazov where Christ returns but is commanded to be silent, as bound to silence that he cannot break by the Church. But what, I ask myself, if God still was doing things that happened after Scripture was complete? If, for example, God had the idea to enthrone Mary as Queen but didn’t bother to see that it was in the Bible (ignoring certain passages such as Rev 12, etc., for the present). Lazarus died and his tomb still stands. The completion of Scripture is not the completion of history but its continued unfolding. Did God bind Himself to only do what was written in the Bible? Hardly, as Catholic apologists will point out, for Jesus did a lot that was not written down.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Catholics believe in Solum Verbum (One Word) rather than Sola Scriptura.

 

[Nita]

The Holy Spirit is the final interpreter.

I think we agree on that.

Not quite, but maybe I’m not understanding the whole context and meaning of “interpreter” as you’re using it in this thread.

I thought we were talking about how people on earth (as opposed to those in heaven) receive a correct understanding of a Scripture passage - where the meaning is not self evident; where the passage can be misinterpreted; where there is need for interpretation to have a correct understanding. In Catholic teaching, the interpreter God has provided is the Church’s Magisterium. We would definitely agree that it is the Holy Spirit *inspiring and guiding *the Magisterium to the correct interpretation and way to express it.

In speaking of an interpreter for us here on earth, it has to be more than the Holy Spirit present within the individual. He is of course present and aiding our intellect, but He does not give His guidance in such a “loud” and clear way that there is no mistaking Who is “speaking” and what is being communicated. If that were the case, we would not have all these differing interpretations (by believing, sincere Christians) that cause division in the Body of Christ.

Nita

 

[Nita]

The completion of Scripture is … its continued unfolding

.

Beautiful.

Nita

 

[Truthstalker]

In speaking of an interpreter for us here on earth, it has to be more than the Holy Spirit present within the individual. He is of course present and aiding our intellect, but He does not give His guidance in such a “loud” and clear way that there is no mistaking Who is “speaking” and what is being communicated. If that were the case, we would not have all these differing interpretations (by believing, sincere Christians) that cause division in the Body of Christ.

This illustrates, I think, a key philosophical difference between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics believe man to be good enough for God to actually use, given sufficient grace; Protestants tend to believe man so fallen that God must act directly. That is an oversimplification but we get into arguments beyond my depth on the nature of authority, what is real and symbolic, and other headaches.

And, replies the Protestant, if God leads us in such a way that we get different interpretations, so be it. There is finally only one truth, however much we err on the way to finding it. And there are still disagreements within Catholicism. Not every issue is settled and not every Catholic agrees with every other Catholic on every issue.

 

[kaycee]

This illustrates, I think, a key philosophical difference between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics believe man to be good enough for God to actually use, given sufficient grace; Protestants tend to believe man so fallen that God must act directly.

That is why I believe the Catholic position to be semi-pelagianism.

 

[John_Taylor]

That is why I believe the Catholic position to be semi-pelagianism.

From The Catholic Encyclopedia - Quick Questions
newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock93.htm

What is semi-Pelagianism? Recently a Protestant apologist said that the Catholic position on grace is a textbook case of semi-Pelagianism. And is there something called just plain Pelagianism?

…Semi-Pelagianism was a theological movement common in France in the fifth and early sixth centuries. It was an attempted compromise between Augustine’s teachings on grace and those of the heretical monk Pelagius.

Pelagius said the human will freely commits good or evil and that grace is needed only to help the will do what it already can do on its own. He said that we do not inherit original sin, physical death, or spiritual death from Adam. We learn to sin only by following the bad example of our parents and others.

Finally, Pelagius said that Christ does not bring us new life; he merely helps us by the good example he set for us on the cross, and by following his example we gain grace and are saved.

Semi-Pelagianism was nowhere near this extreme, but it still denied important points of the faith. Its basic claims were:

(1) the beginning of faith (though not faith itself or its increase) could be accomplished by the human will alone, unaided by grace;

(2) in a loose sense, the sanctifying grace man receives from God can be merited by natural human effort, unaided by actual grace;

(3) once a man has been justified, he does not need additional grace from God in order to persevere until the end of life.

All of these propositions, together with those of full-blown Pelagianism, were condemned in 529 at the second Council of Orange (can. 5, 10, and 18) and again in 1546 by the Council of Trent (Decree on Justification, chs. 5, 6, 8, and 13). It is thus impossible to say that Catholic views on grace and free will are semi-Pelagian, for the Church explicitly condemns the errors of the semi-Pelagians.

(jmt) The Catholic Faith affirms the teaching of our Lord that apart from Him we can do nothing (Jn 15:5). It is grace by which we are moved to have faith, it is grace by which we are moved to accomplish the works God has prepared for us to accomplish (Ephesians 2:10 and Phillipians 2:13) and it is the grace of final perseverance which alone will keep the Elect faithful unto death.

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[RNRobert]

(3) once a man has been justified, he does not need additional grace from God in order to persevere until the end of life.

Sounds alot like the OSAS doctrine taught by some Protestants…

 

[John_Taylor]

…once a man has been justified, he does not need additional grace from God in order to persevere until the end of life.

Sounds alot like the OSAS doctrine taught by some Protestants…

…OSAS is even worse, for it asserts (as I’ve had it argued to me) that a man “once justified” doesn’t even need to “persevere until the end”…“mortal sin” (as per 1 Jn 5:16) is when a justified man sins so grievously against God that God goes ahead and calls the soul of the “justified sinner” up to heaven inorder to limit the effects of his “bad example”…which just goes to show (for the informed Catholic) the spiritually mortal danger of Sola Scriptura and the “private interpretation” of Scripture.

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[John_Taylor]

(Nita) In speaking of an interpreter for us here on earth, it has to be more than the Holy Spirit present within the individual. He is of course present and aiding our intellect, but He does not give His guidance in such a “loud” and clear way that there is no mistaking Who is “speaking” and what is being communicated. If that were the case, we would not have all these differing interpretations (by believing, sincere Christians) that cause division in the Body of Christ.

(Truthstalker) This illustrates, I think, a key philosophical difference between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics believe man to be good enough for God to actually use, given sufficient grace; Protestants tend to believe man so fallen that God must act directly.

(jmt) Does God not work indirectly through man to communicate His Revelations to all of mankind through His prophets and through the writers of Sacred Scripture? Obviously man is not so fallen to preclude them as being fitting instruments for God’s purposes, correct? And doesn’t God take into account man’s free will cooperation in the accomplishment of His works? If the Spirit of Truth can move the Sacred Writers to write “without error” the words of Scripture, then why can’t the same Spirit of Truth operate in other men to insure an error free interpretation of Scripture?

(Truthstalker) That is an oversimplification but we get into arguments beyond my depth on the nature of authority, what is real and symbolic, and other headaches.

(jmt) As a believer of “Sola Scriptura”, is it your understanding that the principle of “private interpretation” is valid for each and every believer in Jesus Christ? such that each and every individual’s heart felt understanding of God’s Revelations is true and equally acceptable to God as being “the Truth”?

(Truthstalker) And, replies the Protestant, if God leads us in such a way that we get different interpretations, so be it. There is finally only one truth, however much we err on the way to finding it.

(jmt) Catholics agree that there is indeed only one truth “for God is not the author of confusion” (1Cor 14:33) so how is it that believers in “Sola Scriptura” seem so ready to excuse the myriad of contradictory interpretations of Scripture evident among their adherents?

(Truthstalker) And there are still disagreements within Catholicism. Not every issue is settled and not every Catholic agrees with every other Catholic on every issue.

(jmt) There are Catholics who accept the teaching authority of Christ’s Church - the pillar and foundation of the truth (1Tim 3:15) - and then there are those “catholics” who don’t. Not every issue imaginable is dogmatically settled but for all of those that are the dissenters know what they are dissenting from - ie., “the teaching of the Church”. Can the same be said of believers of Sola Scriptura? They arrive at a interpretation of the Bible that other “Bible Alone” Christians declare heretical. Since neither group recognizes the authority of the other to interpret Scripture for them can either group be seen as dissenting from “the teaching of Scripture”? Yet at least one group (if not both) are teaching error “as God’s truth”. Now, if this state of affairs is “okay” with you as a believer in “sola scriptura” then why do you take Catholics to task for holding and teaching our corporate understanding of what the Scriptures do and do not teach even if it contradicts your own? Is it not hypocritical of Sola Scripturists to affirm their right to interpret Scripture “however much we err on the way to finding” the “one truth” but deny the same to Catholics?

just seems to me “Bible Alone” believers - who, as far as I know, all admit that they are not infallible in their efforts to interpret Scripture - have no right to put down anyone’s heart felt understanding of God’s Word even if they understand God’s Word to affirm the authority of Sacred Tradition and that of the Church to “bind and loose”.

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[Truthstalker]

You seem to be accusing me of this. I would like to see the evidence that supports your accusation. I study Catholicism partly because I have found, at least at times, a more faithful understanding, or a greater depth in the understanding, or a different way of looking at something of or in Scripture than I have found elsewhere. I appreciate a lot of the insights Catholics give.

No one has a monopoly on a right understanding of Scripture except God. Some of what it speaks about transcends human understanding. Popes have hesitated to rule on some controversies because they don’t know (Molinism versus Thomism comes to mind). The Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on truth. God has a monopoly on truth, and He gives, as an act a grace, understanding to us sometimes on some things. Humility is absolutely required, and sometimes that seems more than a bit lacking among those who try to do apologetics on both sides of the Tiber.

 

[John_Taylor]

…my apologies Truthstalker…I was writing with broad strokes and didn’t mean to attack you personally. The main point I meant to get across (because it was fresh on my mind from reading John Martignoni’s recent newsletters biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter) was that Sola Scriptura boils down to each individual’s private interpretation of Scripture and given that we are all fallible and prone to errors in thinking then God’s Revelations (of the doctrines and precepts necessary for our salvation) become uncertain and our faith in what we believe may be delusions leading to death.

Mr Martignoni puts it this way:

This question of who is or is not an “authentic interpreter” of Scripture is also a very good one to ask anyone who believes in Sola Scriptura - the Bible Alone…Sola Scriptura folks believe each individual has the right, the duty, to pick up Scripture, and, thinking for themselves without answering to any outside authority – because there is no authority outside of the individual reading Scripture – come to an understanding of what is and is not authentic Christian doctrine. So, if that’s the case, then every individual reading the Bible should be considered an “authentic interpreter” of Scripture, right?!

But, he can’t admit to being an authentic interpreter of Scripture, can he? That would be an act of rank conceit, not to mention the infallibility thing that he doesn’t believe in. However, he can’t admit to not being an authentic interpreter of Scripture, can he? Because that would mean that anything he believes about what the Bible says, could be wrong. And, he can’t say that I am not an authentic interpreter, because then he’s admitting that I shouldn’t be picking up the Bible and reading it to come to my own conclusions without any outside authority – yet he believes I should be doing just that. But, he can’t say that I am an authentic interpreter because then he would have to agree with my interpretations of Scripture that he currently disagrees with. What is a sola scriptura person to do?!

I believe God has Revealed to us the religion by which He wants us to worship Him - the doctrines we are to believe (which are true and not to be rejected) and the precepts we are to practice (which are good and pleasing to God). He has revealed to us exactly what we need for our salvation. That being so then surely He would establish the means by which we may know - without error - those truths He has revealed for our salvation. Since Sola Scriptura leads to so much confusion on these points I have to reject it as a false principle. I understand your point about the diversity of theological opinion which may and does exist within the Catholic Church but I would note that such differing opinions are allowed only to the extent that they do not contradict any dogmatically declared doctrine or precept. Molinism may emphasize the operation of human free will in the working out of our salvation and Thomism may emphasize the sovereignty of God’s grace but neither may deny that both human free will and God’s Sovereignty are at work in the accomplishment of our salvation. There may be these tensions between two truths above our ability to reason to reconcile but what I don’t find within the Catholic model are the out right contradictions in what is affirmed as being “dogmatically true” seen within the Sola-Scriptura model.

Somehow, when push comes to shove and a controversy must be settled within the Church, it just seems to me that God would have provided His Church the means for infallibly arriving at the truth. The Orthodox affirm the infallibility of the Church in Ecumenical Council but then, once they separated from the Catholic Church, Ecumenical Councils become extinct among them. Seems to me that what was operative in the beginning of the Church would remain operative until Her Lord’s Return since controversies are always present - and so that leaves me with the Catholic Church under the pastoral care of the Pope as the Successor of St Peter.

Sola-Scriptura doesn’t come close to providing what needs to be provided - an authentic, authoritative presentation of God’s Revelations to mankind for our salvation.

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[Skripper]

I read over the section in the Catechism on Scripture and Tradition and then read over this thread again. Now I am confused.

The Catechism specifically states that Scripture and Tradition are not the same thing. The way I read it, Scripture is NOT part of Tradition. To me the Catechism seems to suggest that Scripture is like the noun and Tradition the verb of the Word of God Who is Christ. The one is set, the other is living; the one is finite, the other continues and acts. Yet people keep saying Scripture is part of Tradition.

I think a better translation of “Tradition” would be “Transmission”. To my ears “Tradition” suggests a fixed body of beliefs that stand in contrast or alternative to Scripture, which may be why so many Protestants have trouble with it. It is not just the oral stuff the apostles didn’t write down, but a whole lot more, and continues today. The living “Transmission” transmits the Word of God into the world today. In contrast when you tell me of church tradition it suggests something dead and man made, something it would be wise to shun.

Comments?

Might this be what you are referring to (bolding mine)?

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.” “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”

 

[Truthstalker]

Might this be what you are referring to (bolding mine)?

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.” “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”

Yes.

But if Scripture is authoritative and yet distinct from Tradition, then there must be some places that Scripture’s authority is apart from Tradition…I wonder if Catholics are so burned by Protestant attacks that they have a hard time admitting that Scripture has authority apart from Tradition.

 

[John_Taylor]

…if Scripture is authoritative and yet distinct from Tradition, then there must be some places that Scripture’s authority is apart from Tradition…I wonder if Catholics are so burned by Protestant attacks that they have a hard time admitting that Scripture has authority apart from Tradition.

I don’t know how “theologically correct” this may be but this is how I’ve made sense of all this: Sacred Scripture is the Inspired Word of God written down and thus it is of the highest value as evidence for what God has revealed. Sacred Tradition is the Inspired Word of God as it was explained by the Apostles and handed down through the office of Bishop thus it serves as evidence for what God has revealed. The two witnesses, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, do not contradict but rather strengthen the testimony of the other. For example, with regards to the correct understanding of our Lord’s discourse on “the bread of life” (Jn 6) several interpretations are possible but when we look at what the early Christians believed it’s evident that they understood the discourse as referring to the Eucharist and a “Real Presence” of Christ. Finally, if a dispute arises as to what is the authentic understanding of a particular revelation from God then this is where the Magesterium of the Church (the bishops in union with the See of St Peter) step in and pronounce - under the protection of the Spirit of Truth as promised by Christ to His Church - “the pillar and foundation of the truth” - what the correct and infallible understanding is to be held by all the faithful - the whole Church.

Thus we have two witnesses to God’s Revelation to mankind for our salvation: Scared Scripture and Sacred Tradition and an authentic, authoritative expounder of what the two witnesses attest to. The three work together. To ignore any one of them opens the door to error.

Hope this helps

Keep the Faith
jmt