"We are travellers…not yet in our native land" – St. Augustine
Several times recently I’ve had people speak to me about “the wealth of the Vatican”, either implying it’s wrong for the Church to have money or just openly condemning it. It is declared that it is hypocritical and somehow contrary to the teaching of Jesus. A lot could be said on this subject, but I would just like to briefly make a few points…
I recently wrote a series of posts (Part 1| Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4) on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and thought I’d write a quick follow-up post to address one objection I’ve recently heard…
Some Protestants draw a distinction between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura. They assert that there is huge difference between the two. For example, in the book, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, the non-Catholic author Keith Mathison defines Solo Scriptura as the belief that:
“Scripture [is] not merely the only infallible authority but that it [is] the only authority altogether”
The Shape of Sola Scriptura, Keith Mathison
In contrast, he defines Sola Scriptura as the conviction that:
“Scripture [is] the sole source of revelation; that it [is] the final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice; that it [is] to be interpreted in and by the church, and that it [is] to be interpreted according to the regula fidei”
The Shape of Sola Scriptura, Keith Mathison
The difference he tries to assert in his book is that Solo Scriptura says that the Bible is the highest authority, being both inspired and infallible, but that Sola Scriptura does not declare it to be the only authority.
I would suggest that there is no principled difference between the two. I say this because they both pretty much boil down to the same thing: the locus of final interpretive authority ultimately lies with the individual Protestant.
Has the decree of his denomination or a council ever overruled his personal interpretation of Scripture?
His denomination may “suggest”, the creeds of the early Councils may “guide”, but the final interpreter of Scripture is still that individual Protestant. Unfortunately, this produces as many “final authorities” as there are Sola Scriptura Christians.
Or, put another way, if nobody is Pope, everybody is Pope.
I was just speaking to a Seventh Day Adventist about why we celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday. A longer answer could be given, but I thought I’d just post here the quotation I just shared with him from St. Justin Martyr:
We hold our assembly on Sunday because it is the first day [of the week], on which God brought forth the world from darkness and matter. On the same day, Jesus Christ our Saviour rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before [Saturday]; and on the day of the Sun [Sunday[ he appeared to His apostles and disciples and taught them these things, which we have submitted to you for your consideration.
– St. Justin Martyr, First Apology (c. AD 150)
If you would like to read a larger extract from St. Justin where he describes Christian worship in Rome during the Second Century, please see the Patristics Section of this website.
A friend recently sent me a Facebook message asking about a passage from the Bible she had heard at Mass:
“Can you shed light on the “brothers” of Jesus in the gospel today for me? James, Joseph, Simon and Judas…”
The passage referred to was from Matthew’s Gospel:
They were astonished [at Jesus] and said, “Where did this man get such wisdom and mighty deeds? Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not his sisters all with us? …” – Matthew 13:54-58
So what do we make of these guys, these “brothers” of Jesus?
The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was not only a virgin at the time of Jesus’ birth, but also that she remained a virgin for the rest of her life. However, doesn’t the above passage mention the “brothers…[and]…sisters” of Jesus? Doesn’t that prove that Mary had other children after Christ?
As you can imagine this issue is often raised in Catholic-Protestant dialogue, since the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary found in Sacred Tradition seems to many Protestants to obviously contradict Sacred Scripture.
There’s a lot which could be said on this subject, but in this post I would like to offer a brief response and explain how Catholics understand the mention of Jesus’ “brothers”.
Over the last few days I’ve been looking at the subject of Sola Scriptura. Today I would like to discuss the alternative to Sola Scriptura which I realized made more sense of both history and the Biblical data…
Ironically, the answer itself was in Scripture. After the Ascension, writing the New Testament wasn’t the priority because it wasn’t what Jesus commanded the Apostles to do. At the Great Commission Jesus told His disciples to “teach” all nations what He had taught them (as opposed to write a book). If you wanted to know the truth in c. 30AD you would go to Jesus. Who would you go to after the Ascension? You would go to the Apostles He taught and commissioned. It was this living Tradition that sustained the Church – primarily by orally passing on to others what Jesus had taught. Jesus wanted to found a Church, not a book club.
In the Book of Acts, when there was a disagreement over the question of Gentile circumcision, the Christians didn’t use Scripture to decide the answer, but called a Church Council. I could only think of one Church today which still calls [Ecumenical] councils to resolve matters of doctrine and practice…
The more I read Scripture, the clearer it became that the Early Church was one which exercised authority (1 Corinthians 16:16, Hebrews 13:17) given to her by Christ – to forgive sins, no less! Even in my most anti-Catholic moments I could still clearly see that Matthew 16 showed Christ giving Peter a special authority. I could only think of one Church today which claimed to still have that same authority passed on from Peter….
“If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he confidence that he is in the Church?” – St. Cyprian (A.D. 251)
For the last two days I have been looking at the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Yesterday I looked at the problem of doctrinal unity and interpretation created by this doctrine. Today I would like to look at the other problem which I saw as I began to reconsider my allegiance to this belief.
Problem #2: The Bible’s origin and teaching
The second problem which really started to trouble me was the Bible itself. A monk from my home parish asked me the question: “Which came first? The Church or the Bible?”. The answer was obvious – the Church came first.
I recall another time when I was ranting about Catholics not reading their Bibles (I still do!). This monk asked me how the early Christians grew in their faith without each having access to their own leather-bound New Jerusalem Bible.
My thinking had been somewhat backwards and these two questions gave me pause for thought.
Yesterday I began speaking about the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. A lot could be written concerning the problems with this Formal Principle of the Reformation, but I will leave that to better minds. Instead, over the next two days I would just like to focus on the two main problems which drove me to consider more deeply the validity of the doctrine. After being involved in the Protestant world for a few years, two problems nagged at me:
Problem #1: Correct interpretation
This first problem was one that I saw first-hand. In my various non-Catholic wanderings, I had encountered some great pastors: faithful, holy and insightful. I was greatly encouraged by their witness and learned a great deal from them.
However, I began to notice that, even within the same parish, there was quite often a considerable diversity in theological opinions. Within the home groups there was also considerable latitude in belief and when a dispute arose, there wasn’t a clear path towards finding a resolution other than asking one of the church staff, and even then you couldn’t guarantee that you’d get the same answer from two different staff members. There was also a mild form of dissension in that the Pastor’s Sermon was often critiqued after the service and it would be discussed as to whether or not everyone agreed with it.
These are only personal, anecdotal impressions, of course. However, when you consider different denominations, these interpretive disputes can be seen more clearly. Some denominations believe in infant baptism, others do not. Some denominations believe that baptism actually does something in the soul of the one being baptised, others affirm that it is just an outward symbol. Likewise, some denominations affirm some concept of Jesus’ real presence in the Eucharist, while others say that it is, again, just a symbol. Some denominations have female pastors, others say that’s invalid. Some affirm the Trinity, others deny it. This lack of doctrinal unity in the Protestant world concerned me greatly.
Right at the dawn of the Reformation you had Luther and Zwingli, two early leaders of the Reformation, disagreeing over the correct interpretation of “This is my body” – Luke 22:19. Each presented his own private, fallible interpretation of that passage, but with no Church Authority to resolve the dispute, there was no possible way to resolve the deadlock.
