Dialog with Jerry: Part 1 (Sola Scriptura)
I recently devoted several posts to an exchange I had with a sedevacantist called Mike in the hope that, if you ever encounter a sedevacantist like him, you’ll have some idea as to what to expect.
Well, a little while ago I had some correspondence with a non-Catholic Christian named Jerry and I thought it would also be helpful if I posted some of that exchange here as well.
As often happens, we began our discussion by focussing on the Reformation doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” (“Scripture Alone”), the subject of my recent four-part series. As you can see from our exchange below, Jerry was a little confused as to the meaning of this Latin phrase…
> You said you didn’t understand how I could not believe Sola Scriptura, but I say I can’t understand why Catholicism teaches it.
I believe there might have been some miscommunication and misunderstanding here.
There’s a very good reason why you can’t understand that Catholicism teaches “Sola Scriptura” – it doesn’t teach it! I’m not quite sure how you could have reached this conclusion from reading the Catechism.
The Catholic Church has not, does not and will never teach the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura”. The doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” is a Protestant innovation which was developed in the 16th Century at the time of the Reformation. The exact meaning of “Sola Scriptura” will vary depending upon which Protestant group you ask, but it basically means that the Bible is the only or highest infallible source for Christian doctrine.
This is not what Catholicism teaches. The Catholic Church teaches that Christ commissioned the Apostles to “go and teach all nations” everything He had taught them. This is what Catholics call “The Deposit of Faith”. The main form of transmission was through preaching. Over time some of “The Deposit of Faith” was written down in what we know call Sacred Scripture. That which was not written down we call Sacred Tradition. Guided by the Holy Spirit, the Magisterium proclaims, teaches and explains this Faith.
You can read more about this in a document from the Second Vatican Council called “Dei Verbum” (MP3 version is available here). Since you have a copy of the Catechism, you can also read about it beginning in paragraph 74.
> What I don’t believe is that God stopped speaking after the scriptures were “sealed”.
The Catholic Church likewise does not believe that God stopped speaking, although She believes that public revelation has ceased. This is (one of the reasons) why the Church rejects the Qur’an and the Book of Mormon. However, the Holy Spirit continues to speak and guide the Church – if this were not the case, we’d all be in deep trouble…
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— the Spirit of truth – John 14:16
> The Holy Spirit lives in us to lead us and teach us and He still speaks. In this way I don’t believe Sola Scriptura; the idea that “scripture alone” teaches us and is the final authority. I believe scripture is the written word which points to and testifies of Jesus who is the Living Word and He is the final authority.
Amen! What you write here is far closer to Pope Benedict XVI than either Martin Luther or John Calvin:
“Still, the Christian faith is not a ‘religion of the book’. Christianity is the religion of the ‘Word’ of God, a word which is ‘not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living.'” – Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) #108
To me, this sounds almost identical to what you wrote above.
> What I don’t understand is how Catholics can believe that the Pope’s teachings are infallible and stand as high if not higher than scripture, yet say they believe Sola Scriptura.
As I’ve hopefully now made it clear, Catholics don’t believe in Sola Scriptura. I feel a few things should be said here to clear up some misconceptions that I fear you may have:
1. The Pope’s teachings are not higher than Scripture:
“Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit… – CCC #86
2. Papal infallibility is only exercised under certain, extremely restricted circumstances. Not everything the Pope says is infallible. He can err on politics, economics or sociology. He can even err on theology when he is not speaking “ex cathedra”. For example, In the opening of Pope Benedict’s book he spells it out very clearly that the book’s contents are just his fallible opinion as a theologian:
“It goes without saying that this book is in no way an exercise of the magisterium, but is solely an expression of my personal search ‘for the face of the Lord’ (cf. Ps 27:8). Everyone is free, then, to contradict me. I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding.” – Jesus of Nazareth, Joseph Ratzinger
Having said that, Benedict is a first class theologian and that book is superb!
It is probably worth noting that you do actually believe in infallibility in some sense. For example, you believe that that the Holy Spirit kept St. Peter from error when he wrote his two epistles, correct? You don’t believe that St. Peter was sinless or of necessarily of great intellect, but you believe that through a special act of God’s grace God preserved St. Peter from error when authoring those documents. From this starting point, Papal infallibility isn’t really that much of a stretch.
I’ll pick this up again tomorrow…