There is nothing prideful in prayerfully studying Scripture. God has commanded that we do so. As for private interpretation, I submit that mine is no more fallible than yours.
Dear kelman,
Cordial greetings and a very warm welcome to the world of CAF.
There is indeed nothing prideful about the devout study of Sacred Scripture, but private interpretation only results in doctrinal chaos. If proof is required of this then one only needs to look the fragmented condition of Protestantism to observe the unhappy result of the uncertanties of private judgment. Whilst it is freely admitted that the Catholic Church today is assailed by dissentient voices, these modernists and rebels do not speak for the magisterium, which has roundly and unequivocally condemnded their erroneous opinions. Therefore, this in no wise destabalizes the infallibility of the Church nor weakens the contrast drawn by the apologists between the uncertainties of individual judgment and the certainty of the authoritative guide. Moreover, that contrast demonstrates that individual private judgment leads men along a subjective path to an ultimate quagmire of competing opinions. True, we do live in a fallen world, but are we to really expected to believe that our Lord envisaged such a chaotic situation and took no steps to ensure that it did not emerge after His departure from this world? Catholics quite rightly regard the multiplication of demoninations as a tragedy and a scandal in terms of our mission to the world and could never view them as part of the economy of God, supposedly ensuring that issues neglected by the mainstream are championed.
Protestant brethren fail to appreciate that the word of Scripture emerged from the Church and is the word spoken in the Church and by the Church for the Church. Further, the Church is, as it were, the Divinely given check against the intrusion of erroneous and novel teaching in faith and morals. It is surely inconceivable that our gracious God should have left His Church without a visible guide and authoritative voice. This is not merely a matter of biased Catholic opinion or taste, but a self-evident truth which emerges from the character of God. Thus just as we would infer from the justice of God that deception by Him is inconceivable, so we may infer from God’s love for His Church and His high purposes for it that it is likewise inconceivable that He should allow it to fall into error as touching faith and morals. An authoritative visible guide is thus seen as an inevitable consequence of the character and the purposes of God.
The notion of the perspicuity of Scripture, so extolled by the Protestants, simply cannot be sustained, especially in view of the multitude of denominations. Moreover, the differences between these groupings is not merely over so called “second order issues”. The different groups do not disagree only about minor things such as whether one should be sprinkled, dipped or dunked in Holy Baptism, but about crucial questions of doctrine (e.g. is Baptism essential for salvation?; can one loose their eternal salvation?; what is the role of good works?; what is a sacrament?). It is easy to say that bible is basicly clear, but experience does not actually bear it out because all the different Christian groups and individuals make their appeal to the same bible to make their conflicting points. How can that be right or even desirable? This is nothing new for in the second century you had some Christians say that Jesus was God incarnate, whilst others said He was not, and the problem was that their were good Christian men on both sides of the debate which argued their case powerfully from Scripture. Who was to settle the matter authoritatively and definitively?
Another clear problem that arises is what does one do when the bible does not present clear teaching on some issue of crucial importance? This is pivitol today since so many important moral questions are products of the modern age. The bible simply does not address things like* in vitro* fertilisation, human cloning, atomic warfare or even global warming. Thus when there are disagreements and when Sacred Scripture does not speak clearly, who decides? In other words, who interprets the sacred text for the needs of Christians today? Surely, it is up to you and me or some unerring authority greater than both of us. The Catholic would contend that the latter is the case.
Finally a word about that II Timothy passage, which is the classic proof text for the
sola scriptura theory. It is indeed a splendid text and Catholics would agree on the inspiration/usefulness of Sacred Scripture. However, the passage does not declare that Scripture is the
only authority, nor does it inform us as to what is the foundational authority for our knowledge of the truth. The N.T. actually points to the Church as that universal authority. Protestants assert that the bible alone is sufficient and is the final authority and court of appeal, however St. Paul states in the Ephesian epistle that “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God will be made known” (3: 10), and in I Tim. 3:15 he says it is the
Church which is “the pillar and foundation of the truth”, not the bible. Thus St. Paul would certainly entrust us to God and Scripture, but would equally maintain that Scripture must be correctly interpreted by the Church, given that it and not the bible is “the pillar and foundation of truth”.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
