Just a thought - there is a rather common misconception held by Catholics about the doctrine of sola scriptura, which says that it is about the Bible being interpreted by each individual. It is only about half right. You must remember that most Protestant groups would say that their understanding of Scripture is not only Truth as revealed by Scripture, but in many cases would argue that it was the same faith (perhaps with some development) held by the early Church. That is, they see themselves as continuous with the church through time - in their view it was the hierarchy of the Catholic Church that strayed, which is what justified their leaving it. Sola Scriptura does not necessarily mean that there is no use of Tradition in understanding Scripture. Lutheranism for example would fall into this understanding.
From that POV, it seems to me that it is very much like the argument that says the SSPX were right in disobeying the Pope because*** they were holding to a Truth taught at all times by the Church, from which the Pope had strayed.***
Thank you for that comment,
bluegoat. Your comment in [my] bold is precisely what the SSPX say.
Here in Cork City, the Pastor of the Cork Free Presbyterian Church and I have had an ongoing debate for some years, including a web debate that lasted 18 months, on Sola Scriptura, and a Public Debate “That This House declares that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ” [to which, to our great disappointment, only our close friends & families came, though we booked a roomy hall & advertised it – he won 12 - 10]. I might add we respect and even like each other as individuals – “Aithníonn ciaróg ciaróg eile” – “One beetle recognises another” – we are both, I think, two stubborn old mules, who are trying to make “Thy Kingdom come” – but he adamantly refuses to accept [1] that
Scripture does not, in fact, say that “Scripture alone is the sole source of Faith” or [2] that “Sola Scripura” Christians actually differ greatly in their interpretation of Scripture – in fact, all such Christians are driven by the logic (or illogic) of their position to deny that they are ‘interpreting’. Unfortunately, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are so far off the track that they deny the Holy Trinity, and deny that the Holy Spirit is a ‘He’, not an ‘it’, (which you can’t prove from the Greek language alone, which uses grammatical gender, not logical gender like English)… the Jehovah’s Witnesses
also deny that they are ‘interpreting’. My reply to them all has always been, “You can’t admit you are ‘interpreting’. We can and do admit it. We have an Authority for our interpretation, the Apostolic See. We can show that it is in continuity with the Apostles. What is your own authority?” Likewise for the “conservative” Protestants like the Lutherans, as opposed to the “Radicals” like the Baptists: their position is found to be untenable by a reading of history. Cdl Newman, originally high in the Anglican church, came to Rome by this path. Having studied the Arian crisis and others, he wrote, “I looked into the mirror, and behold, I was a Monophysite”. I urge all Catholics who wish to be loyal to Eternal Rome to study the pre-Vatican II encyclicals, and remember that Eternal Rome is the Mystical Body, the Bride of Christ, and not to be confused with the human actions of her members - “We hold a treasure in earthen vessels”. Even the Pope has feet of clay, and can & may make mistakes as an individual. It is the duty of a loyal son sometimes to point this out.
surritter writes,
when the Church that defines that truth changes something (that is changeable) the SSPX is obligated to say that the Church can do that…
That is precisely what the SSPX do. For example, thay adopted the 1962 revision of the TLM Missal, perhaps with reservations, but because the changes were ordered by the Competent Authority and could not be said to endanger the Faith. For this, they are condemned by Sedevacationist groups [those who refuse to recognise the popes of the late 20th century]. (The Sedevac position is completely untenable, but they cannot seem to calm down & look back into history or Canon Law enough to realise that). Likewise the SSPX accept the New Code of Canon Law for the same reason, while noting that it leaves many loopholes that are bound to cause trouble in the long term. Luckily, it is a precept of Law that, when a newer legislation is doubtful, and when an older law has not been specifically abrogated, ‘in cases of doubt take the more certain course’ – that is, follow the old law.
They accept the New Catechism on its own evaluation. Not all readers of this Catechism have read the Introduction by Pope John Paul II, where he states in black and white that it is advisory, not normative, and does not supercede the older catechisms. Look it up! Meanwhile, the Catechism of the Council of Trent states explicitly that it is normative and canonical.
This is what the SSPX have had the courage to affirm through all these years and decades of confusion, misrepresentation and vilification: the more closely you look at the actual documents of Vatican II & their sequel, the more you realise that the whole “New Conciliar Orientation” is nothing but a mare’s nest.
