Pastor Mike and Sola Scriptura

[JosephJohn]

I was watching this video by trent horn rebutting a evangelical pastors claim that catholics are not christians because of our claims of teaching authority. Here’s the video

Refuting CATHOLIC Authority (REBUTTED) - YouTube

I want to offer my thoughts on it and one question thats really bothering me. If youre not interested in my my thoughts please skip to the *** for my question.

Trent is usually a tremendous debater but I found this response somewhat lacking. He often falsely equated the kind of authority Pastor mike claims over the bible with the authority the magisterium claims. I think the magisterium clearly claims much more authority. I also thought that he kinda muddled the issue of the deposit of the faith. We believe not that the church has authority to add doctrine or change doctrine but only clarify the doctrine which was completely deposited before the death of (probably) St John the Apostle in ~99A.D. That means that scripture and tradition are each materially sufficient for proper doctrine. the magisterium is in the business of preserving the sense of that deposit not in adding to it. Trent makes it sound like we add to it and that it is acceptible for the magisterium to add to it. Maybe Ive misunderstood our church’s teaching but i think ive got this right. Please correct me with a source if not .

His point about sola scriptura making the individual christian the final authority on faith is problematic too because individual catholics still need to understand and not muddle the churches teaching in their heart. the magisterium can get distorted too. Maybe the difference is that the magisterium has actual authority to excommunicate and forgive in a way which may influence the fate of a soul that scripture does not?

---

Ok heres my question finally- thanks for being patient. It is clear from the letter to Timothy that Paul and the others said but didnt record doctrine which we need to hold fast too. But how can we be sure of what actually did originate in the first century and what did not. Church fathers are mostly unanimously catholic in their teachings on just about everything but there are counter examples. St Jerome identified the wrong OT cannon for a time for example. How practically does the magesterium define what tradition contained when its so uncertain from a historical perspective? How can we be sure the pope’s personal theological preference never adds or subtracts anything from tradition.

 

[po18guy]

Saint Jerome was neither Pope nor council.

What he was, was obedient.

 

[JosephJohn]

right, certainly im not trying to insult or disrespect st Jerome. He was wrong about the cannon before the cannon had been defined so he didnt do anything sinful whatsoever… in fact thats kind of my confusion. We rely on Saints like Jerome as fathers for our beliefs but they dont always agree with one another or with the church today. How can the church determine that one Father and not another is actually faithfully describing Apostolic Tradition?

I also dont intend to be disobedient. I am a Roman Catholic and only want to increase my certainty of my faith and obedience to it. I dont think i am being disobedient by asking this concern so someone wiser than me can help me. Im not sure what you meant by your second line.

 

[po18guy]

By following the Magisterium. Thank the Lord He gave it to the Church.

EDIT: We must always look at the macro and not be mislead by the micro. The faith depends on neither individual, no matter who they are, no matter how educated or intellectual. We have the Church. Rock solid. Rewind 503 years. This debate did not and could not have occurred as “bible alone” had never been taught, never been practiced. It is a novelty, a man-made invention to suit man’s preferences rather than God’s.

We do not believe or disbelieve by the words of one man or the other in a debate. We have been given the Church, which decides such matters. Once the Church has spoken, the matter is settled. The fact that some allege otherwise is relevant only in that they are the exception which proves the rule.

Our part is to be knowledgeable, but most of all to be obedient.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Maybe the difference is that the magisterium has actual authority to excommunicate and forgive in a way which may influence the fate of a soul that scripture does not?

Magisterium is living. It can see and identify present problems and release statements. It can react to current events. That’s the difference. Bible is done. No new chapters coming out on Sunday.

How practically does the magesterium define what tradition contained when its so uncertain from a historical perspective? How can we be sure the pope’s personal theological preference never adds or subtracts anything from tradition.

With that we trust in Holy Spirit. He protects the Church as was written in the Bible.

 

[fhansen]

Based on Scripture alone there’s no universal agreement among Sola Scriptura adherents on baptismal regeneration, the real presence, even the deity of Jesus, as examples. This is because it’s impossible to do so because the Bible is sufficiently vague or ambiguous so as to allow for conflicting plausible interpretations; it was never intended to be a catechism, it cannot speak for itself, and there’s simply no mechanism or device within the doctrine of Sola Scriptura to ensure that Scripture is being properly used as the rule of faith, no designated authority to resolve controversy.

That authoritative role must, necessarily, be filled by a human entity, by the Church Christ established for that purpose. The same Church that received, preserved, and proclaimed the gospel before a word of the New Testament was written. The church that assembled the canon of Scripture itself and ruled at council on the deity of Jesus, forging the doctrine of the Trinity. The Church, in both the east and west, where baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence were never even controversies because they were settled issues from the very beginning and practiced as such from then until now. That’s where the unwritten teachings, where Tradition, comes into play and reveals itself.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is really an unusable joke that’s spawned way more confusion and division in the Christian world than any other source possible, in spite of the notion that it should bring understanding and resolve conflict. Instead it only serves to make each individual reader with an opinion on its meaning an infallible magisterium for all practical purposes.

 

[MarkRome]

How can we be sure the pope’s personal theological preference never adds or subtracts anything from tradition.

Because if he speaks ex cathedra we have the promise of Jesus Christ that it will be without error. “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Since God cannot bind error, then the teaching from the Pope also cannot contain error.

 

[Gorgias]

st Jerome. He was wrong about the cannon before the cannon had been defined so he didnt do anything sinful whatsoever

I don’t think I would put it that way. St Jerome wasn’t “wrong”, in the same way that you wouldn’t say that members of Congress aren’t “wrong” when they debate prior to passing a bill into law. They’re expressing their viewpoint and later, the consensus of that legislative body creates a law to be followed.

Similar thing here, although St Jerome wouldn’t be a “member of Congress” in this example – he’d be a witness whom Congress would hear in the course of its deliberations.

We rely on Saints like Jerome as fathers for our beliefs but they dont always agree with one another or with the church today. How can the church determine that one Father and not another is actually faithfully describing Apostolic Tradition?

Because Jesus gave them that charism to transmit faithfully His teachings.

I dont think i am being disobedient by asking this concern so someone wiser than me can help me.

Nope, no disobedience there. You’re just asking so that you’d clear up confusion. “Faith seeking understanding”, right?

How can the church determine that one Father and not another is actually faithfully describing Apostolic Tradition?

The teaching of Apostolic Tradition proceeds from the pope and the college of bishops in union with him. Church Fathers (I’m assuming that you mean the “Early Church Fathers”, as they’re called) don’t authoritatively teach on their own, much like an individual member of Congress doesn’t pass a law on his own.

So, the teaching authority of the Church states doctrine based on their deliberations and prayers, counting on the Holy Spirit to guide them in all truth.

Im not sure what you meant by your second line.

He meant that St Jerome wasn’t a bishop and therefore, not part of the magisterium. Therefore, he offered his opinions before the matter was settled, and when the magisterium made his proclamation, he obeyed it and went with what they taught.

 

[JosephJohn]

wow so many great responses over night! Thank you guys. I knew it basically was a question of authority (which the bible confirms in the pope). I think the consensus so far is that the bible is the deposit of faith which is protected from bad teachings by the magisterium.

I want to make sure i have this right. Magisterium cannot add anything novel to revelation or interpret revelation in a novel way. We know what is novel from tradition which the magisterium uses to inform itself. So the church can tell us when something is definitely wrong about scripture but not change its meaning. And Christians are free- and encouraged- to read scripture on their own as long as they don’t try to add a novel interpretation either and would be faithful if the church told them their understanding was heretical.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, the Church gives us solid guidelines for reading Scripture, but maintains that we should always read it in light of her teachings as well:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm

 

[Gorgias]

I think the consensus so far is that the bible is the deposit of faith which is protected from bad teachings by the magisterium.

I think I would nuance it a little bit, though: the Bible is part of the Deposit of Faith, inspired by God and codified by the magisterium.

Magisterium cannot add anything novel to revelation or interpret revelation in a novel way.

I think I’d say that the magisterium (by which we merely mean “the teaching authority of the Church”) utilizes Divine Revelation as an (name removed by moderator)ut, and promulgates doctrine as an output.

So the church can tell us when something is definitely wrong about scripture but not change its meaning.

I would say that the magisterium of the Church interprets Scripture faithfully and authoritatively.