J
JReducation
Guest
We have to look at history to understand some of these statements. Unfortunately, many of the Protestant Reformation communities do not examine Church history carefully. I say this with great charity, because I love them very much. There is much good among them and they do share in our one common baptism. But even members of the extended family can be mistaken when they don’t know the history.
During the Middle Ages many penitential movements arose. These movements attempted to get back to the simplicity of the early Church. They were very dependent on the Scriptures. One of these movements was the Minores, led by St. Francis of Assisi. These movements tended to read the scriptures and apply them without reference to the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition. They found themselves in spiritual trouble. They drew incorrect conclusions and ended up in heresy. This led the papacy to become very leery of movements who claimed to be Evangelical. The Church suppressed all of these movements, except for the Minores.
Pope Innocent III was deeply impressed when St. Francis took his rule to Rome for the pope’s approval. Francis had also consulted with one of the Benedictine monks, who was a priest. He had the priest explain what each scripture passage meant, before he wrote it down in his rule of life. As you can see, Francis was faithful to apostolic continuity and he understood the relationship between the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition and Scripture. Innocent, seeing this, approved the Minores, who were later known as the Friars Minor and in 1858 would be renamed, Franciscans.
As we can see from this comparison between Francis’ Evangelical movement and that of others, the issue was not that the Church disapproved of lay people reading the bible. Francis was a lay man and so were the Franciscans. To this day, there are very few priests in the Franciscan family. Most Franciscans are lay and it’s still an Evangelical movement. The difference is that this Evangelical movement took the scriptures in union with the Tradition handed down by the Apostles and the Magisterium. This movement always professed obedience to the Gospel, the Church, the founder and the brothers, in that order. No one interprets scripture unilaterally or without accountability.
The restrictions and condemnations were against those movements that had no accountability. They evolved into heresy. Many of them eventually joined the Reformation communities started by the Protestant Reformers in the 1500s. It was not the intention of the Reformers to become heretics. But they were influenced by the idea of that if you followed the scriptures you did not need a Magisterium. That’s where the term “sola scriptura” comes from. What happened to them was horrible, because these movements invaded their reform, swept up the reformers and their followers into anti clericalism. The popes again had to issue condemnations and restrictions on this inappropriate use of Scripture.
These were never blanket statements that forbade the use of scriptures by the laity. They forbade the unilateral use of scripture. The Bible came from the Christian community as the faith experience of the community. It was put down in writing for the community. It was interpreted by the community. We see a movement here that is always based on community. Therefore, any unilateral attempt at Evangelicalism, is in danger of falling into error. The Church is not opposed to Evangelicalism. If it were, then it would be opposed to the Gospels. The Church is defending the tetrad: Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium. Without that tetrad, we lose our communion.
The Bible must always be read, not as the ultimate authority on faith and morals, but as part of that authority, which also includes the Tradition and the Magisterium. The three are no in conflict with each other, because the Church is the only legitimate interpreter of the Bible. So even when Catholics say that they follow the Bible over the bishops or popes, they are wrong. Only the Church can interpret the Bible. We individuals reflect on it, use it to pray, discern with it, allow ourselves to be guided by it, but we do not have the authority to claim authority to interpret it correctly. Many times we do, as was the case with St. Francis. But like Francis, our interpretation must always be checked against the other two parts of Revelation: Tradition and Magisterium.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
During the Middle Ages many penitential movements arose. These movements attempted to get back to the simplicity of the early Church. They were very dependent on the Scriptures. One of these movements was the Minores, led by St. Francis of Assisi. These movements tended to read the scriptures and apply them without reference to the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition. They found themselves in spiritual trouble. They drew incorrect conclusions and ended up in heresy. This led the papacy to become very leery of movements who claimed to be Evangelical. The Church suppressed all of these movements, except for the Minores.
Pope Innocent III was deeply impressed when St. Francis took his rule to Rome for the pope’s approval. Francis had also consulted with one of the Benedictine monks, who was a priest. He had the priest explain what each scripture passage meant, before he wrote it down in his rule of life. As you can see, Francis was faithful to apostolic continuity and he understood the relationship between the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition and Scripture. Innocent, seeing this, approved the Minores, who were later known as the Friars Minor and in 1858 would be renamed, Franciscans.
As we can see from this comparison between Francis’ Evangelical movement and that of others, the issue was not that the Church disapproved of lay people reading the bible. Francis was a lay man and so were the Franciscans. To this day, there are very few priests in the Franciscan family. Most Franciscans are lay and it’s still an Evangelical movement. The difference is that this Evangelical movement took the scriptures in union with the Tradition handed down by the Apostles and the Magisterium. This movement always professed obedience to the Gospel, the Church, the founder and the brothers, in that order. No one interprets scripture unilaterally or without accountability.
The restrictions and condemnations were against those movements that had no accountability. They evolved into heresy. Many of them eventually joined the Reformation communities started by the Protestant Reformers in the 1500s. It was not the intention of the Reformers to become heretics. But they were influenced by the idea of that if you followed the scriptures you did not need a Magisterium. That’s where the term “sola scriptura” comes from. What happened to them was horrible, because these movements invaded their reform, swept up the reformers and their followers into anti clericalism. The popes again had to issue condemnations and restrictions on this inappropriate use of Scripture.
These were never blanket statements that forbade the use of scriptures by the laity. They forbade the unilateral use of scripture. The Bible came from the Christian community as the faith experience of the community. It was put down in writing for the community. It was interpreted by the community. We see a movement here that is always based on community. Therefore, any unilateral attempt at Evangelicalism, is in danger of falling into error. The Church is not opposed to Evangelicalism. If it were, then it would be opposed to the Gospels. The Church is defending the tetrad: Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium. Without that tetrad, we lose our communion.
The Bible must always be read, not as the ultimate authority on faith and morals, but as part of that authority, which also includes the Tradition and the Magisterium. The three are no in conflict with each other, because the Church is the only legitimate interpreter of the Bible. So even when Catholics say that they follow the Bible over the bishops or popes, they are wrong. Only the Church can interpret the Bible. We individuals reflect on it, use it to pray, discern with it, allow ourselves to be guided by it, but we do not have the authority to claim authority to interpret it correctly. Many times we do, as was the case with St. Francis. But like Francis, our interpretation must always be checked against the other two parts of Revelation: Tradition and Magisterium.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF